United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-30122 

____________ 

Sabre Industries, Incorporated, 

Plaintiff—Appellant/Cross-Appellee, 

versus

Module X Solutions, L.L.C., 

Defendant—Appellee/Cross-Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 5:19-CV-934 

______________________________ 

Before Smith, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Sabre Industries, Incorporated (“Sabre”), sued for various business 

torts and statutory violations. After discovery, the district court granted 

summary judgment to Module X Solutions, L.L.C. (“MXS”), but denied 

MXS’s motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees. Finding no error, we affirm. 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

December 15, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-30122 Document: 00517004031 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2023
No. 23-30122 

2 

I. 

Sabre provides a variety of products and services to energy and telecommunication companies. One division of Sabre focuses on energy storage, 

that is, providing storage facilities to energy companies. MXS was formed in 

2014 when 100 employees left Sabre. Sabre supported that breakaway initially and engaged MXS to support Sabre’s projects. In 2019, however, MXS 

decided that it wanted to enter the energy-storage industry in its own name. 

To do that, it needed skilled employees. 

MXS engaged in a hiring push to recruit employees with energystorage experience. One of the employees hired was Joe McLaurin, a former 

Sabre employee. McLaurin proceeded to assist MXS in hiring other Sabre 

employees for MXS’s fledgling energy-storage division. Sabre argues that 

McLaurin’s conduct violated a non-compete agreement that McLaurin had 

signed with Sabre. MXS was aware of that non-compete agreement when it 

hired McLaurin. 

MXS’s hiring push paid off, as it was able to obtain skilled workers and 

bring in energy-storage clients. Sabre, on the other hand, began to suffer 

financial losses and experienced an exodus of employees. Sabre sued and, as 

relevant here, alleged that MXS tortiously interfered with its business relationships, engaged in unfair trade practices, and misappropriated its trade 

secrets and confidential information. Sabre voluntarily dismissed the misappropriation claims with prejudice when it was unable to substantiate them 

in discovery. 

The claims of tortious interference and unfair trade practices reached 

the summary-judgment stage. The district court determined that MXS’s 

conduct was motivated by profit, not malice, so it granted MXS’s motion for 

summary judgment. The district court also denied MXS’s motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees after determining that Sabre had not brought its 

Case: 23-30122 Document: 00517004031 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2023
No. 23-30122 

3 

claims in bad faith. Sabre appealed the summary judgment, and MXS crossappealed the denial of sanctions and attorney’s fees. 

II. 

Louisiana courts have long recognized a cause of action for tortious 

interference with a business relationship. See Graham v. St. Charles St. R.R. 

Co., 18 So. 707, 708 (La. 1895). But “Louisiana courts have limited this cause 

of action by imposing a malice element, which requires that the plaintiff show 

the defendant acted with actual malice.” JCD Mktg. Co. v. Bass Hotels & 

Resorts, Inc., 2001-1096, p. 11 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/6/02), 812 So. 2d 834, 841. 

Sabre failed to discover any evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to 

find that MXS acted with actual malice when it hired McLaurin and used him 

to solicit and hire other Sabre employees. Therefore, the district court did 

not err in granting summary judgment to MXS on this claim. 

The Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law 

(“LUTPA”) “grants a right of action to any person . . . who suffers an ascertainable loss as a result of another person’s use of unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or 

commerce.” Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 2009-1633, 

p. 6 (La. 4/23/10), 35 So. 3d 1053, 1057; see La. Stat. Ann. § 51:1405(A). 

But the statute does not prevent companies from “pursu[ing] profit, even at 

the expense of competitors, so long as the means used are not egregious.” 

Cheramie Servs., 2009-1633, p. 11, 35 So. 3d at 1060 (quoting Moore v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 364 So. 2d 630, 633 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1978)). Sabre 

failed to produce any evidence of actions taken by MXS that were “immoral, 

unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious.” Id., 2009-

1633, p. 12, 35 So. 3d at 1059 (cleaned up). Therefore, the district court did 

not err in granting summary judgment to MXS on this claim. 

Finally, the district court did not err in denying MXS’s motion for 

Case: 23-30122 Document: 00517004031 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/15/2023
No. 23-30122 

4 

sanctions and attorney’s fees because the evidence does not support MXS’s 

contentions that Sabre brought claims it knew to be false and prosecuted 

claims in bad faith. Even if there were evidence of sanctionable conduct, any 

error in evaluating Sabre’s conduct does not rise to the abuse-of-discretion 

level. See Whitehead v. Food Max, Inc., 332 F.3d 796, 802–03 (5th Cir. 2003) 

(en banc). 

Finding no error, we AFFIRM the summary judgment and denial of 

sanctions and attorney’s fees, essentially for the reasons the district court 

explained in its thorough Memorandum Ruling issued January 31, 2023. 

Case: 23-30122 Document: 00517004031 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/15/2023