# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 26 50

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

W es t Pl ai ns , L.L. C., do in g b us in es s as CT Frei gh t Co m pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ret zl aff Gra in Co m

pa ny Inco rp or at ed , do in g b us in es s as RFG Log is ti cs ; Br y ce W el ls ; J effr ey

Brad le y ; Th om as Dann er; Reb ecca Dann er; Jo dy May ; Ch ad
Need ha m ; To dd Pay zan t; Sam an th a Rh on e; Cry st al Kon eck y ; Ci nd y Sch ol ti ng ; Drew W ag go ne r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el la nt

s

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 10, 2 01 7
Fil ed : Au gu st 30 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

RILEY, Cir cu it Ju dg e

On Feb ru ary 5

, 20 13

, te n in di vi du al s res ig ne d fro m CT Frei gh t Serv ic es , a
di vi si o n o f Wes t Pl ai ns , L.L.C. (West Pl ai ns ), to joi n a st art -u p frei gh t br ok erag e

op erat io n f

o u n de d by Bryce W el ls

, th e fo rm er own er of W es t Pl ai ns

. W es t Pl ai nssu ed

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d a te m po rary res tra in in g or d e r f o l l o w ed by a 1

pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n ag ai ns t Ret zl aff Grai n Co m pa ny (RFG Log is ti cs ), pr oh ib it in g

RFG Log is ti cs fro m so li ci ti ng CT Frei gh t’s cu st om ers un ti l Apr il 5, 20 13

. The cas e

pr oc eed ed to tri al

, an d a jury fo un d th e de fen da nt s li ab le fo r to rti ou s in te rfer en ce wit h

bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi ps an d br each of th e du ty of lo y al ty. The jury award ed W es t

Pl ai ns $1 ,51 3,0 00 an d req ui red n i n e o f t he te n em pl oyees to fo rfei t po rti on s of

co m pe ns at io n rece iv ed fro m W es t Pl ai ns

. The de fen da nt s ren ewed th ei r m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w an d m ov ed fo r a ne w tri al or a men d e d ju d g m en t. The

di st ric t cou rt den ie d th e m ot io ns , an d th e de fen da nt s se ek rev ers al

. W e affi rm

. See

28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1 (a pp el la te juri sd ic ti on ).

I. BACKGRO UND

A. Fac tua l Ba ck gr ou nd 2

B r yc e W el ls was pr es id en t an d sh areh ol de r of W es t Pl ai ns Co m pa ny, an

ag ric ul tu ral co m

m od it y tra di ng bu si ne ss

. In Feb ru ary 20 12

, W el ls so ld W es t Pl ai ns

Co m pa ny to W es t Pl ai ns , L.L.C. (West P l a i n s )

, b ut de cl in ed an of fer to st ay wit h

W es t Pl ai ns as ch ie f fin an ci al o f fic er. W es t Pl ai ns co nt in ue d to op erat e th e sa m e
bu si ne ss un it s as W es t Pl ai ns Co mp a n y. O n e o f th os e bu si ne ss un it s was a sm al l

frei gh t br ok erag e op era t i o n c a l le d CT Frei gh t. CT Frei gh t’s pr im ary so ur ce of

rev en ue was sh ip pi ng dr y co m m od it ie s, refe rred to by th e pa rti es as th e “ bu lk ho pp er”

in du st ry

. The bu lk ho pp er bu si ne ss co m pr is ed ab ou t 9 0 pe rcen t of CT Frei gh t’s

an nu al rev en ue , an d CT Frei gh t’s to p 20 cu st om ers ge ne rat ed ro ug hl y 70 -7 5 pe rcen t

of CT Frei gh t’s o ve ral l re ve nu e.

The Hon or ab le Lau rie Sm it h Cam p, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1

fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.

“ In co nd uc ti ng ou r rev ie w, we co ns id er th e e v i de nc e in th e li gh t m os t 2

fav or ab le to th e jury ve rd ic t.” Crai g Out do or Adv ert

., In c. v. Viac om Out do or , In c., 52 8 F .3d 10 01 , 10 09 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

-2

-A t t h e ti m e of th e sa le , Th om as Dan ne r an d Reb ecca Dan ne r (Dan ne rs ), J e f f

Brad le y , Cha d Nee dh am , Tod d P ay zan t, Sam an th a Rh on e, Crystal Kon eck y , Cin dy

Sch ol ti ng , Drew W ag go ne r, (th e em pl oyee de f

e n d a n ts ) an d Jo dy May were 3

em pl oyees of W es t Pl ai n s Co m pa ny. Need ha m su pe rv is ed CT Frei gh t’s Om ah a

of fic e, an d Tho m as Dan ne r (Dan ne r) su pe rv is e d an ot he r of fic e in Man ni ng , Io wa.
The em pl oyee de fen d a n t s a ll acce pt ed em pl oym en t wit h W es t Pl ai ns , an d th ey

co nt in ue d to wor k in th e sa m e po si ti on s th ey he ld at CT Frei gh t be fo re th e sa le

, wit h

th e ex cep ti on of May. The em pl oyee de fen da nt s each si gn ed th e W e s t P l ai ns

Em pl oyee Han db oo k, whi ch pr oh ib it ed em pl oyees fro m en g a g i n g in co nf li ct s of

in te res t an d d is cl os in g c on fid en ti al in fo rm at io n t o a co m pe ti to r.

Abo ut ei gh t m on th s la te r, in Octo be r 20 12

, W el ls be ga n fo rm in g a co m pe ti ng
frei gh t b ro ke rag e op erat io n, Ret zl aff Grai n Co m pa ny, whi ch di d bu si ne ss as RFG
Log is t i c s

. W el ls fir st recr ui te d Sch ol ti ng , CT Frei gh t’s ad m in is tra ti ve su pe rv is or , Dan ne r an d hi s wife Reb ecca , an d Need ha m

. Tho se fo ur in di vi du al s si gn ed

co nf id en ti al it y an d co ns ul ti ng ag reem en ts wit h W el ls in Octo be r or Nov em be r 20 12

. In ex ch an ge fo r pr ov id in g W el ls in fo rm at io n ab o u t C T Frei gh t’s op erat io ns , Well s

pa id th em each a $5 ,00 0 c on su lt in g fe e.

Fro m th e ti m e th ey si gn ed th ei r ag reem en ts wit h W el ls to th ei r ev en tu al

res ig na ti on s, Sch ol ti ng , Need ha m , an d D an ne r ex te nsi ve ly co m m uni ca te d w ith W el ls

, cl os el y wor ki ng wit h hi m to or ga ni ze th e de ta il s o f R F G Lo g i st ic s. Sch ol ti ng

pr ov id ed W el ls wit h in si gh t on th e dynam ic s of th e CT Frei gh t te am an d ad vi se d hi m

on th e b es t m et ho d t o re cru it th e te am

. Eve nt ua ll y , th e su pe rv is or s b eg an to recr ui t

th e em pl oyees. In Decem

be r, Dan n e r r e c r u i te d Brad le y , a frei gh t br ok er in th e

Man ni ng of

fic e. In earl y Ja nu ary 20 13

, Need ha m an d W el ls recr ui te d frei gh t br ok ers

Alt ho ug h May was in cl ud ed in th is ap pe al

, th e jury fo un d sh e was no t lia bl e 3

on al l of th e cl ai m s br ou gh t ag ai ns t he r. The ref o r e, we do no t in cl ud e he r in ou r
gr ou pi ng of t he em

pl oyee de fen da nt s.

-3

-W ag go ne r an d Payzant an d br ok erag e as si st an t Rh on e. Brad le y , W ag go ne r, an d

Payzant si gn ed co nf

id en ti al it y an d co ns ul ti ng ag reem en ts wit h W el ls

. By th e en d of

Ja nu ary, th e em

pl oyee de fen da nt s ha d al l co m m it te d to le av in g CT Frei gh t fo r RFG
Log is ti cs

. W el ls se cu red an of fic e lo cat io n in Om ah a, an d th e Dan ne rs se cu red a
lo cat io n i n C arro ll , Iowa . The p la n was in pl ace.

On Feb ru ary 5, 20 13

, th e em pl oyee de fen da nt s su bm it te d res ig na ti on s fro m CT

Frei gh t vi a em ai l. The Dan ne rs , Need ha m , an d Payzant an no un ced th ei r res ig na ti on s

were effe ct iv e im m ed ia te ly. W ag go ne r, Sch ol ti ng , a nd Kon eck y of fere d t o r e main

wor ki ng fo r CT Frei gh t fo r ap pr ox im at el y on e week

. Brad le y of fere d to st ay un ti l

Feb ru ary 8, 20 13

, an d May of fere d to st ay fo r two week s. Upo n rece iv in g no ti ces of

th e res ig na ti on s, W es t Pl ai ns ’ reg io na l m an ag er su m m on ed W ag go ne r, May, Rh on e,

an d Kon eck y to a m eet in g an d di rect ed th em to ha nd ov er th ei r wor k cel l ph on es an d

ke y s a n d t o l d th em th ey were free to le av e. Sch ol ti ng was no t to ld to le av e. Late r

th at aft ern oo n, Kon eck y an d W ag go ne r were as ke d to ret ur n to as si st cu st om ers whi le

W es t Pl ai ns sc ram

bl ed to f in d rep la cem en ts

. Sch ol ti ng , Kon eck y , an d W ag go ne r

rem ai ne d at CT Frei gh t un ti l Feb ru ary 8, whe n th ey de cl in ed to si gn a two -y ear no nco m pe te ag reem en t an d wer e to ld to lea ve

.

B. Pro cedu ra l H is to ry

On Feb ru ary 8, 20 13

, W es t Pl ai ns br ou gh t th is su it al le gi ng cl ai m s of
(1 ) m is ap pr op ria ti on of tra de se cret s ag ai ns t al l de fen da nt s; (2 ) to rti ou s in te rfer en ce
wit h bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi ps ag ai ns t al l de fen da nt s; (3 ) to rti ou s in te rf e ren ce wit h

em pl oym en t rel at io ns hi ps ag ai ns t W el ls an d R F G Lo gi st ic s; (4 ) br each of th e du ty

of lo y al ty ag ai ns t t h e e mplo y ee de fen da nt s; (5 ) ci vi l co ns pi racy ag ai ns t al l

de fen da nt s; an d (6 ) vi ol at io n of th e Co m pu t e r F r a ud an d Abu se Act,

18 U.S.C. § 10 30

, ag ai ns t Need ha m

. See 28 U.S.C. § 13 32 (a) (d iv ers it y juri sd ic ti on ).

Fo ur da y s la te r, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d a te m po rary res tra i n in g or de r ag ai ns t th e
de fen da nt s pr oh ib it in g th em fro m co nt act in g an d pr ovi din g fr ei ght br oke ra ge se rv ic es

fo r th e cu st om ers an d carr ie rs of C T Frei gh t un ti l fu rth er or de r an d or de rin g th e

-4

-de fen da nt s to ret ur n an y or ig in al do cu m en ts an d reco rd s ta ke n fro m W es t Pl ai ns

. On

Feb ru ary 2 6, th e di st ric t co ur t en te red a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n ex te nd in g th e te rm s

of th e res tra in in g o rd er u nt il Apri l 5 , 20 13

.

In Ju ne 20 15

, th e de fen da nt s m ov ed fo r pa rtial sum m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t

co ur t co nc lu de d W el ls (an d RFG Log is ti cs ) la wfu l l y so li ci te d th e em pl oyee
d e fen da nt s to joi n RFG Log is ti cs an d gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t on th e cl ai m f o r

to rti ou s in te rfer en ce wit h em pl oym en t rel at io ns hi ps

. The di st ric t co ur t al so gr an te d

su m m ary jud gm e n t o n th e cl ai m ag ai ns t Need ha m un de r th e Co m pu te r Frau d an d

Abu se Act, bu t de ni ed su m m ary jud gm en t on th e cl ai m s fo r m is ap pr op ria ti on of tra de

se cret s an d to rti ou s in te rfer en ce wit h bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi ps

. In an ti ci pa ti on of tri al

, th e de fen da nt s fil ed a m ot io n in li m in e to ex cl ud e ev id en ce rel at in g to CT Frei gh t’s

“ ‘tot al lo ss of va lu e’” an d lo st pr of it s aft er th e in

jun ct io n ex pi red

. The di st ric t co ur t

de ni ed th e m ot io n, reas on in g cl ai m -s pe ci fic is su es wou ld ha ve to be res ol ve d at tri al

.

Tria l to ok pl ace be fo re a jury ov er se ve n da y s in Ja nu ary 20 16

. W es t Pl ai n s
cal le d W el ls an d each of th e em pl oyee de fen da nt s. The di st ric t co ur t rece iv ed in to

ev id e n c e s ev eral hu nd red pa ge s of ex hi bi ts

, in cl ud in g in st an t m es sa ge s an d em ai ls

ex ch an ge d am on g th e de fen da nt s an d ph ot oc op ie s of th e em pl oyee de fen da nt s’

co nt act li st s ta ke n fro m W es t Pl ai ns

. To pr ov e i ts da m ag es , W es t Pl ai ns cal le d an

ex pe rt wit ne ss who

, ov er th e de fen da nt s’ ob jecti on , te st ifi ed as to th e va lu e of th e CT

Frei gh t di vi si on be fo r e r e si gn at io ns in Feb ru ary 20 13

. Fro m rev ie win g fin an ci al

st at em en ts an d cu st om er rep or ts

, the ex pe rt co nc lu de d RFG Log is ti cs was a pr of it ab le

bu si ne ss in it s f

i r s t m on th an d ex ecu te d “ si gn ifi can t sa le s th at were pr ev io us ly CT

Frei gh t’s.” At th e cl os e of th e pl ai n ti ff’s cas e, th e de fen da nt s m ov ed fo r jud gm en t

as a m at te r of

law, wh ic h t he di st ric t co ur t d en ie d.

The jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t in fav or of W es t Pl ai ns on th e to rti ou s in te rfer en ce
wit h bu si ne ss rel a t i o n s hi ps cl ai m s ag ai ns t al l de fen da nt s ex cep t May, Rh on e, an d

Kon eck y

. The jury al so fo un d al l em pl oyee de fen da nt s br each ed th ei r du ty of lo y al ty

-5

-an d al l de fen da nt s ex cep t May e n t e r ed in to a ci vi l co ns pi racy. The jury award ed

$1 ,513, 000 in co m

pe nsa tor y da m ag es an d req ui red fo rfei tu re of co m pe ns at io n ag ai ns t

th e em pl oyee de fen da nt s in va ry in g am ou nt s, to ta li ng $5 1,7 87 .50

. The de fen da nt s 4

ren ewed th ei r m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w, or al te rn at iv el y , to am en d th e jud gm en t, or fo r a ne w tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io ns , an d th e de fen da nt s

ap pe al

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Ju dg m ent a s a Mat ter o f La w

Ju dg m en t as a m at te r of la w sh ou ld be gr an te d whe re “ th e co ur t fin ds th at a

reas on ab le jury wou ld no t ha ve a le ga ll y su ffi ci e n t e v i d e nt ia ry ba si s to fin d fo r th e

p a r t y o n t h a t is su e.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 50 (a). W e rev ie w de no vo th e de ni al of t h e
de fen da nt s’ ren ewed m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w, “ vi ewin g th e ev id en ce

‘in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e p art y who pre va il ed be fo re th e jury.’ ” W il so n v.

Bri nk er In t’l, In c., 38 2 F.3 d 76 5, 76 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (q uo ti ng Ci ty of Om ah a Em ps

. Bet te rm en t As s’n v . Cit y of Om ah a, 88 3 F .2d 65 0, 6 51 (8t h C ir. 1 98 9) ).

1. To rti ou s I nter fere nce w ith Bus in es s Rel at io ns hi ps

To pr ov e to rti ou s in te rfer en ce wit h a bu si ne ss re la tio nshi p unde r Neb ras ka la w,

W es t Pl ai ns m

us t d em on st rat e:

“ (1 ) th e ex is te nc e of a va li d bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi p or ex pe ct an cy , (2 ) kn owl ed ge by th e in te rfer er of th e rel at io ns hi p or ex pe ct an cy , (3 ) an

un ju st ifi ed in te nt io na l act of in te rfer en ce on th e pa rt of th e in te rfer er,

The jur y d e t e r m in ed th e fo ll owi ng am ou nt s of co m pe ns at io n sh ou ld be 4

f o r fei te d an d award ed to W es t Pl ai ns : $3 ,33 3 ag ai ns t Brad le y ; $1 5,0 00 ag a i n s t Tho m as Dan ne r; $5 ,83 2 ag ai ns t Reb ecca Dan n e r ; $1 3,6 66 ag ai ns t Need ha m ; $2 ,29 1.5 0 ag ai ns t Payzant ; $1 ,66 6.5 0 a g a i n s t Rh on e; $1 ,66 6.5 0 ag ai ns t Kon eck y ; $6 ,24 9 a ga in st Sch ol ti ng ; an d $ 2,0 83 ag ai ns t Wagg on er.

-6

-(4 ) pr oo f th at th e in te rfe r e n c e c au se d th e ha rm su st ai ne d, an d (5 )

da m ag e to th e p art y

who se rel at io ns hi p o r ex pe ct an cy was d is ru pt ed .”

Huf f v. Swart z, 60 6 N.W .2d 46 1, 46 6 (Neb

. 20 00 ) (q uo ti ng Kos te r v. P & P Ent ers ., 53 9 N.W .2d 27 4, 27 8- 79 (Neb

. 19 95 )). “ In or de r to be act io na bl e, in te rfer en ce wit h

a bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi p must be bo th in te nt io na l an d un jus ti fie d.” Aon Co ns ul ti ng , In c. v. Mi dl an ds Fi n. Ben efi ts

, In c., 74 8 N.W .2d 62 6, 64 5 (Neb

. 20 08 ); se e al so

Lam ar Co . v . C it y

of F rem on t, 7 71 N.W .2d 89 4, 90 6 (Neb . 2 00 9) (“ An in te nt io na l,

bu t ju st ifi ed , act of i nt erfe ren ce wi ll no t s ub ject t he in te rfer er t o l ia bi li ty.”).

N e b r a sk a ha s ad op te d th e fact or s of § 76 7 of th e Res ta te m en t (Sec on d) of

Tort s t o d et erm in e whe th er suc h in te rfer en ce was pr op er. See Huff, 6 06 N.W .2d at

46 8. In th is cas e, th e jury was in st ru ct ed to co ns id er the fact or s un de r § 76 7, whi ch

are:

“ (a) th e na tu re of th e act or ’s co nd uc t, (b ) t h e a c t o r ’s m ot iv e, (c) th e in te res ts o f t h e ot he r wit h whi ch th e act or ’s c on du ct in te rfer es , ( d) th e i n t eres ts so ug ht to be ad va nc ed by th e act or , (e) th e so ci al in te res ts in

pr ot ect in g th e free do m of act io n of th e act or an d th e co nt ract ua l in te res ts of th e ot he r, (f) th e pr ox im it y or rem ot en es s of th e act or ’s co nd uc t to th e in te rfer en ce an d (g ) th e rel at io ns be twee n t he pa rti es .”

Id

. (q uo ti ng Res ta te m en t (Seco nd ) of Tort s § 767 (19 79 )). The fact or s o f § 7 67 are

“ to be weig he d ag ai ns t each ot he r an d ba la nc ed in arri vi ng at a jud gm en t; bu t th ey do

no t ex ha us t th e li st of po ss ib le fact or s.” Rec io v. Eve rs , 77 1 N.W .2d 12 1, 13 2 (Neb

. 20 09 ). Upo n pr ov in g t h e a c t i o ns of th e in te rfer er were un jus t, W es t Pl ai ns was

req ui red to sh ow th os e act io ns “ in du ce[d ] or cau se [d ] a br each or te rm in at io n of th e [b us in es s] rel at io ns hi p[ s].” Id

. at 13 1. In th ei r ap p e a l

, t h e de fen da nt s rai se
ch al le ng es as to whe th er th ei r co nd uc t am ou nt ed to un jus t in te rfer en ce an d whe th er

-7

-W es t Pl ai ns pr ov ed th ei r co nd uc t pr ox im at el y cau se d W es t Pl ai ns ’ da m ag es aft er th e

ex pi rat io n o f th e te m

po rary inju nc ti on on Apri l 5 , 20 13

. 5

a. Acts of Unj us t In terf eren ce

W e be gi n b y

ev al ua ti ng whe th er th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to fin d W el ls

,

an d, by ex te ns io n, RFG Log is ti cs , c om m it te d un jus t act s of in te rfe r en ce. See, e.g ., W ie kh or st Bro s. Exc av at in g & Equ ip

. Co

. v. Lud ewig

, 52 9 N.W .2d 33

, 40 (Neb

. 19 95 ) (“ Co rp or at io ns act th ro ug h th ei r ag en ts

, an d th e act s of an ag en t are th e act s of

th e co rp or at io n.” ). Co ns id eri ng th e fact or s of § 76 7, we th in k a jury co ul d fin d W el ls

un jus tl y in te rf

e r e d wit h W es t Pl ai ns ’ bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi ps by kn owi ng ly pa y in g,

recr ui ti ng , an d se iz in g CT Frei gh t’s wor kf or ce, in fras tru c t ur e, an d cu st om er
rel at io ns hi ps

. W el ls kn ew th e c om pe ti ti ve frei gh t br ok erag e in du st ry rel ie s on

es ta bl is he d rel at io ns hi ps am on g br ok ers , cu st om ers , an d carr ie rs

. In ot he r wor ds

, if

W el ls co ul d recr ui t th e frei gh t br ok ers , ad m in is tra to rs , a n d a s si st an ts fro m CT

Frei gh t, he co ul d on ce ag ai n own W es t Pl ai ns ’ sm al l, bu t pr of it ab le

, CT Frei gh t

di vi si on wit ho ut pa y in g fo r it

, m erel y ei gh t m on th s aft er he so ld th at bu si ne ss to W es t

P l ai ns , L.L.C. W el ls pa id th e Dan ne rs , S ch ol ti ng , a nd Need ha m a to ta l of $2 0, 0 0 0

in ex ch an ge fo r pr ov id in g hi m co nf id en ti al in fo rm at io n ab ou t CT Frei gh t an d as ke d

se ve n o f th e te n i nd iv id ua ls to si gn co nf id en ti al it y

ag reem en ts wit h h im

.

W el ls os te ns ib ly at te m

pt ed to av oi d so m e le ga l c o n s e qu en ces by em ai li ng

“ Tran si ti on Ru le s” to May, Sch ol ti ng , Dan ne r, an d Need ha m , in st ru ct in g th em to

The de fen da nt s ha ve no t ch al le ng ed th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at th e 5

ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r th e ju ry to fin d W es t Pl ai ns ha d a va li d bu si ne ss

ex pe ct an cy in co nt in ui ng it s rel at io ns hi ps wit h it s cu rren t cu st om ers

. The d i s t r i c t

co ur t de te rm in ed

, “ [a]lt ho ug h Neb ras ka la w is no t fu ll y de ve lo pe d on th is po in t, it is

tru e th at pr ov in g a bu si ne ss ex pe ct an cy ‘val id ’ wil l ge ne ral ly req ui re pr oo f th at th ere

was a reas on ab le li ke li ho od or pr ob ab il it y of a bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi p.” In fo gr ou p In c. v. Dat ab as e LLC, 95 F. Sup p. 3 d 1 17 0, 1 19 6 (D. Neb . 20 15 ).

-8

-refr ai n fro m so li ci ti ng CT Frei gh t’s cu st om ers a n d n o t to ta ke an y th in g fro m CT

Frei gh t. W es t Pl a i n s ag rees th ere co ul d ha ve be en a sc en ari o in whi ch W el ls ’

recr ui tm en t of th e em

pl oyee de fen da nt s was le ga l. See Lam ar Co

., 77 1 N.W.2d at

90 6. Bu t, rath er tha n recru it each em pl oyee de fen da nt in di vi du al ly, W el ls pa id an d

recr ui te d CT Frei gh t’s le ad ers an d pu t in to a pl ac e a p l a n t ha t effe ct iv el y wou ld

rem ov e CT Fre ig ht ’s bu si ne ss to RFG Log is ti cs

.

On th e to pi c of cu st om er ret en ti on , th e de fen da nt s’ ex pe rt te st if i e d

, “ The

cu st om ers are lo ok i n g f o r c a pa ci ty to m ov e th ei r frei gh t.” Due to th e gr ou p

res ig na ti on , CT Frei gh t im med i a te ly lo st it s cap aci ty to br ok er la rg e qu an ti ti es of

frei gh t. The jury co ul d in fer W el ls un de rs to od th at by in st r u c t i n g th e em pl oyee
de fen da nt s to res ig n si m

ul ta ne ou sl y an d br in g th ei r cu st om ers to RFG L og is ti cs , he

co ul d e li m in at e CT Fre ig ht fro m co m pe ti ti on

.

Lik ewis e, th ere was suf

fic ie nt ev id en ce to su pp or t th e jury’ s fin di ng s aga in st

th e Dan ne rs , Brad le y , Need ha m , Payzant

, Sch ol ti ng , a n d Wa g go ne r. W el ls was

pr im ari ly res po ns ib le fo r se tt in g up RFG Log is ti cs , bu t th e em pl oyee de fen da nt s to ok

it up on th em se lv es to ta ke CT Frei gh t’s cu st om er li st s, do cu m en ts

, an d co nf id en ti al

in fo rm at io n se cret ly fo r th e im m ed ia te be ne fit of RFG Log is ti cs

. Dur in g th e m id dl e 6

Brad le y se nt al l of hi s co nt act s sa ve d o n h i s W es t Pl ai ns cel l ph on e to hi s 6

pe rs on al em ai l ad dr es s an d to ok hi s ro lo de x wit h cu st om er in fo rm at io n wit h hi m on th e da y he res ig ne d. He al so do wnl oa de d from hi s com pu te r do cu m en ts co nt ai ni ng

cu st om er in fo rm at io n on a fla sh dr iv e fo r hi s us e at RFG Log is ti cs

. Payzant to ok hi s
pe rs on al no te bo ok co nt ai ni ng no te s of cu st om er rat es , pr efer en ces , an d lo ad
in fo rm at io n. Payzant em ai le d Dan ne r an d Br ad le y a sp read sh eet he ha d crea te d

co nt ai ni ng va rio us rat e s a n d qu ot es th at he “ th ou gh t

. . . m ig ht be ha nd y as a qu ic k
refe ren ce gu id e at a gl an ce.” Payzant al so se nt va rio us rat es an d at ta ch m en ts rel at in g
to on e of CT Frei gh t’s cu st om ers fro m hi s wor k em ai l to hi s pe rs on al em ai l fo r la te r

us e. Need ha m to ok a no te bo ok whe re he ha d reco rd ed al l of hi s reg ul ar en tri es fo r Lan d O’ Lak es , “ a pa pe r tra il fo r m y se lf,” a s h e d e s c r ib ed

. The Dan ne rs bo th to ok

pe rs on al ro lo de xe s co n t a i n i ng cu st om er an d carr ie r co nt act s. Sch ol ti ng to ld W el ls

-9

-o f a w o r k d a y, W ag go ne r to ld Payzant ov er an in st an t m es sa ge th at he ha d be en

se nd in g to hi s pe rs on al em ai l va rio us W es t Pl ai ns do cu m en ts

, in cl ud in g carr ie r rat es ,

cu st om er in f

or m at io n an d ot he r th in gs “ th at wll i [s ic ] be lo st in th e tra ns it io n.”

W ag go ne r th en su gg es te d th e “ be st way to do it is act ua ll y se nd it to y ou rs el f at y ou r

wor k em ai l bu t th en BCC it to y ou r pe rs on al .” Payzant res po nd ed : “ go od id ea.” On

Ja nu ary 15

, aro un d 5 p.m ., W ag go ne r wro te to Payzant

, “ Ch ad sa id if y ou wan t

an y th in g fo r th e ne w of

fic e fro m he re li ke no te s m ak e su re to st art ta ki ng ou t sl owl y .”
Payzant as ke d, “ li tt le bl ack bo ok s rig ht ? ” W ag go ne r rep li ed

, “ ex act ly

. . . st uf f li ke

y ou jus t sa id th at y ou wil l wan t

. . . ju st in cas e th ey ge t al l pi s s y w h e n w e a c t u al ly

l eav e.” W he n Payzant res po nd ed do in g so “ wou ld be gr ou nd s fo r le ga l act io n,”

W ag go ne r rep li ed , “ th at s [s ic ] why y ou ge t i t b efo re t he y pa y att en ti on .”

The de fen da nt s al so m ad e su re th ei r pl an ne d de pa rtu re wou ld no t di sr up t th ei r
bu si ne ss wit h th ei r ex is ti ng cu st om ers , who m th ey ad m it te dl y pl an ne d to br in g wit h

th em th e m om en t th ey le ft CT Frei gh t. In 20 12

, CT Frei gh t’s two la rg es t cu st om ers

were Lan d O’ Lak es an d Nes tl e. Lan d O’ Lak es br ou gh t in ov er $6 ,00 0,0 00 in rev en ue

th at y ear, an d Nes tl e br ou gh t in $2 ,86 4,0 00

. Need ha m m an ag ed th e rel at io ns hi p wit h

Lan d O’ Lak es , an d Dan ne r m an ag ed th e rel at io ns hi p wit h Nes tl e, as well as th e th ird

la rg es t cu st om er, Sco ul ar. Bo th Need ha m an d Dan ne r to ok st ep s to en su re th at th e
bu si ne ss was co m in g wit h th em whe n th ey le ft fo r RFG Log is ti cs

. Dan ne r to ld W el ls

in an em ai l:

The lar ge co m

pa ni es su ch as Lan d O Lak es [s ic ] & N es tl e do no t re act

pr om pt ly an d we do n’t wan t to be in li m bo fo r a week or two whi le th ey fig ur e it ou t, i de nt ify and gi ve us th ei r bl es si ng to co nt in ue ou r cu rren t bu si ne ss un de r ou r ne w na m e of RFG Log is ti cs

. W e may w a n t to

whi ch so ftwa re to pu rch as e an d as si st ed hi m wit h se tt in g up RFG Log i s t i cs ’

acco un ti ng syste m

. Sch ol ti ng ad m it te d to pu ll in g up Exc el fil es co nt ai ni ng CT
Frei gh t’s 2 01 1 a nd 20 12 lo ad an al y si s o n h er RF G Log is ti cs co m pu te r.

-1 0-id en ti fy an y an d al l cu s t o mers th at m ay be [s ic ] sl ow in reac ti ng to a

na m e ch an ge an d g et th em sq ua red away

lo ng be fo re cr un ch ti m e.

A s Dan ne r affi rm ed in hi s te st im on y , th e pl an was to ge t CT Frei gh t’s bu s i n e s s
swi tc he d o ve r to RFG Log is ti cs as qu ic kl y as po ss ib le

. As earl y as Ja nu ary 3,

Need ha m as su red W ag go ne r th at Lan d O’ Lak es “ wil l be i n p l a c e be fo re I le av e.”

Alt ho ug h Lan d O’ Lak es rep res en ta tive K ev in Z im isk i sta te d N ee dha

m ne ve r solic it ed

bu si ne ss on be ha lf of RFG Log is ti cs be fo re Febru ary 5, 2 01 3, Nee dh am sen t a n ew
br ok erag e ag reeme n t t o Zi m is ki on Feb ru ary 1, 20 13

, da y s be fo re Need ha m ’s

res ig na ti on fro m

CT Frei gh t. Need ha m

als o di sc us se d wit h W ag go ne r ho w t o l et a freq ue nt ly us ed carr ie r kn ow wha t was go in g on “ so he is read y , ” a n d ho w to ge t

r e a d y to m ov e an ot he r cu st om er’s bu si ne ss , Co nAg ra, “ wit h ou t [s ic ] ti pp in g o u r

ha nd .”

W hi le th ere was no th in g un jus t ab ou t th e em

pl oyee de fen da nt s’ ch oi ce to le av e

at -wil l em

pl oym en t wit h W es t Pl ai ns , t he re was ev i d en ce th e em pl oyee de fen da nt s

kn ew an d un de rs to od th ei r gr ou p res ig na ti on wou ld de ci m at e C T F r e ig ht

. W he n

W ag go ne r ex pr es se d co nc ern ab ou t le av in g CT Frei g h t fo r RFG Log is ti cs , writ in g

to Need ha m in an in st an t m es sa ge th at th e “ who le th in g” was “ ho ne st ly a bi t sc ary, ”

Need ha m pl ai nl y s t at ed

, “ y es bu t th e pr ob le m is th at th er e wi ll be no CT Frei gh t .”
(Em ph as is ad de d)

. P a yzan t ex pr es se d a si m il ar se nt im en t, te ll in g W ag go ne r vi a

in st an t m es sa ge th ere was “ al m os t li ke no ch oi ce bu t to dr in k th e pu nc h.” Bas ed on

th e na tu re an d i n t e nt of th ei r act io ns , a jury co ul d reas on ab ly fin d th e em pl oyee
de fen da nt s co m

m it te d u nju st act s o f in te rfer en ce.

b. Damag es After Apr il 5, 2 01 3

The de fen da nt s co nt en d “ th e e v i d en ce fai ls to su pp or t th e jury’ s ap pa ren t

co nc lu si on th e In di vi du al Defen da nt s’ res ig na ti on s pr ox im at el y cau se d CT Frei gh t’s

lo ss es ” aft er th e ex pi rat io n of th e two -m on th in jun ct io n on Apr il 5, 20 13

. The di st ric t

co ur t r eject ed th is th eo ry , co nc lu di ng th e ev id en ce sh owe d “ th at th e im pa ct of th e

-1 1-D e f

e n d an ts ’ act io ns co nt in ue d aft er th e ex pi rat io n of th e Co ur t’s Prel im in ary

In jun ct io n,” an d th at “ th e da m ag es award ed were th e ‘pro ba bl e, di rect

, an d pr ox im at e

co ns eq ue nc es of th e wro ng co m pl ai ne d of

.’ ” (Qu ot in g Bed or e v. Ran ch Oil Co

., 80 5

N.W .2d 68 , 87 (Neb . 20 11 )).

The de fen d a n t s f

i n d Vig or o In du st rie s, In c. v. Cri sp in st ru ct iv e. See Vig or o

In du s., In c. v. Cri sp , 82 F.3 d 78 5, 78 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (in te rp ret in g A r k an sa s la w).

Cri sp in pa rt con si de red whe th er the di st ric t co ur t, p res id in g o ve r a ben ch tri al

, ha d

cl earl y erre d by li m it in g th e pl ai nt iff ’s da m ag es fo r br each of th e du ty of lo y al ty “ to

th e ha rm cau se d im m ed ia te ly aft er [th e de fen da nt em pl oyee]’ s de pa rtu re by hi s pr eres ig na ti on so li ci ti ng .” Id

. In th at cas e, th e pl ai nt iff was a lo ng ti m e m an ag er of a

su cces sf ul farm su pp ly st or e. See id

. at 78 7. Sev eral y ears aft er Vig or o acq ui red th e

st or e, Cri sp de ci de d to op en hi s own st or e wit h Clev el an d Che m ic al

. See id . Cris p

in fo rm ed Vig or o of hi s res ig na ti on an d th at hi s fel lo w em pl oyees, so m e of who m ha d

cri ti cal r e l a t io ns hi ps wit h cu st om ers , wou ld be joi ni ng hi m

. See id

. at 78 8.

Fo ll owi ng th e res ig na ti on s, Vig or o’s st or e be ga n op erat in g at a lo ss

. See id

. Vig or o
cl ai m ed ov er $2 m il li on in d am ag es fo r “ lo st go in g co nc ern va lu e,” $3 .5 m il li on in

un jus t en ric hm en t, an d o ve r $4 m il li on in da m ag es for lo st pr of it s. Id . a t 78 9. The

di st ric t co ur t fo un d th e ev id en ce of da m ag es di d no t su pp or t “ ex tra va ga nt lo st pr of it

th eo rie s” an d award ed $7 5,0 00

. Id

. Our co ur t de te rm in ed th e award was no t cl earl y

erro ne ou s, no ti ng th e di st ric t co ur t was “ le ft

. . . wit h th e di ffi cu lt ta sk of es ti m at in g
wha t da m ag e in fact flo wed fro m Cri sp ’s li m it ed br each of du ty” of lo y al ty. Id

. St il l,

we of fere d th at “ we m ig ht ha ve be en in cl in ed to as si gn m or e fin an ci al si gn ifi can ce

to th e fac t t ha t Cr is p t oo k a ll of Vi go ro ’s work for ce.” Id

.

The de fen da nt s em

ph as iz e no in

jun ct io n w a s in vo lv ed in Cri sp , an d y et th e
di st ric t co ur t, act in g as fact fin de r, st il l reject ed th eo rie s of lo st pr of it s. Fi rs t, we
di sa gr ee with th e de fen da nt s’ ge ne ral pr em is e th at th e in jun ct io n wou ld ne ces sa ril y

li m it th e ti m e pe rio d fo r whi ch da m ag es fo r th ei r to rti ou s co nd uc t co ul d accr ue

. The

pu rp os e of a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n, li ke th e on e im po se d he re, is to m it ig at e th e

-1 2-im m ed ia te effe ct of th e ha rm , i.e., pr es erv e th e st at us qu o, se e Uni v. of Tex as v

.

Cam en is ch

, 45 1 U.S. 39 0, 39 5 (1 98 1)

, an d whi le it is rat io na l to ta ke th at in to acco un t

wh e n d e t erm in in g th e ex te nt of th e da m ag es , li fti ng th e in jun ct io n do es no t

ne ces sa ril y

m ean th e p la in ti ff wil l n o l on ge r su ffer da m ag es

.

Seco nd

, un li ke in C r i s p , w e fin d th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to sh ow th e
d e f e n da nt s’ co nd uc t pr ox im at el y cau se d co nt in ui ng da m ag es to W es t Pl ai ns

. Th e
de fen da nt s were no t su bjec te d to res tri ct iv e co v e na nt s, bu t th ei r co nc ert ed act io n

no ne th el es s res ul te d in to rti ou s in te rfer en ce tha t caus ed si gn ifi can t da m ag e to W es t

Pl ai ns

. Cf. ABC Tran s Nat. Tran sp ., In c. v. Aero na ut ic s Fo rward ers , In c., 41 3 N.E.2d

12 99

, 13 13 (Il l. App

. C t

. 1 9 80 ) (n ot in g in a cas e whe re th e em pl oyees res ig ne d en

m as se to joi n a co m

pe ti to r, th e fa c t th at th e de fen da nt em pl oyees “ m ig ht ha ve

acco m pl is he d le ga ll y wha t th ey di d il le ga ll y do es n o t i n a n y way le ss en th ei r

li ab il it y ”). In 20 12

, CT Frei gh t pr of it ed ov er $8 0 0

, 0 00

, bu t in 20 13

, CT Frei gh t

su ffer ed a ne t lo ss of ov er $1 50 ,00 0. W es t Pl ai ns ’ c h i e f e x e cu ti ve of fic er St ep he n

Rh od es te st ifi ed th at aft er th e res ig na ti on s in Feb ru ary 20 13

, “ [b ]asic al ly it was li ke

st art in g a bu si ne ss fro m sc rat ch

. And so it w e n t v e r y sl owl y

. Rev en ue s dr op pe d

dr am at ic al ly. [CT Freig ht ] st art ed ge ne rat in g lo ss es .” To pr es erv e wha t was le ft of

th e bu si ne ss , W es t Pl ai ns im m ed ia te ly be ga n at te m

pt in g to recr ui t em

pl oyees by

reac hi ng ou t to in du st ry gr ou ps an d he ad hu nt ers , bu t as Rh od es st at ed

, “ fo r th e m os t

p art

. . . co ul dn ’t fin d th e pe op le fo r th e bu lk co m m od it y tra ns po rta ti on br ok erag e
bu sines s. ” A nd al tho ug h W es t Pl ai ns hi red rep la cem en ts fo r th e em pl oyee de fen da nt s by May 20 13 , th e rep la cem en ts di d n ot ha ve ex pe rie nc e o r an est ab li sh ed cu st om er
ba se in th e bu lk ho pp er ind us try. W e co nc lu de th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to sh ow

th e de fen da nt s’ act io ns cau se d a lo ss of pr of it s to W es t Pl ai ns , an d th at th e lo ss

co nt in ue d a fte r th e ex pi rat io n o f th e te m po rary inju nc ti on

.

2. Bre ac h o f Duty of L oy al ty

“ Und er Nebras ka la w, it is a ge ne ral ly reco gn iz ed pr in ci pl e th at an em pl oyee

owe s a du ty of lo y al ty to hi s em p l o yer du rin g th e co ur se of hi s

-1 3-em

pl oym en t

. . . irr es pe ct iv e of th e ex is te nc e of a co ve na nt n o t to co m pe te or

n o ns ol ic it at io n cl au se .” Mec caTec h, In c. v. Kis er, No. 8: 05 CV5 70

, 20 08 W L

18 20 80 0, at *5 (D. Neb

. Apr

. 21

, 20 08 ); se e al so Cu da hy Co

. v. Am

. Lab s., In c., 31 3

F. Su pp

. 13 39

, 13 46 (D. Neb

. 19 70 ). To gi ve ris e to li ab il it y , th e em pl oyee’s di sl oyal

co nd uc t m

us t be “ so ha rm fu l as to su bs ta nt ia ll y hi nd er th e em pl oyer in th e

co nt in ua ti on of hi s bu si ne ss .” Id

. Su ch co nd uc t m ig ht in cl ud e so li ci ti ng cu st om ers

of th e em pl oyer or fo rm in g on e’s own co m pe ti ng bu si ne ss whi le st il l wor ki ng fo r th e

em pl oyer. See Bu el l, W in te r, Mo us el & Ass oc s., In c. v. Olm st ed & Perr y Co ns ul ti ng Eng ’rs, Inc ., 42 0 N.W.2d 2 80 , 28 3 (Ne b. 1 98 8)

.

The jury fo un d al l th e em

pl oyee de fen da nt s br each ed th ei r du ty of lo y al ty. The

d efen da nt s in si st th e un jus ti fie d co nd uc t pr ov id in g th e ba si s fo r th e t o r t i o u s

in te rfer en ce cl ai m can no t se rv e as th e ba si s fo r a du ty o f lo y al ty b reac h cl ai m

. Yet

ab se nt an y

Nebr as ka leg al au th or it y , we fai l to se e why the same con du ct co ul d n ot

pr ov id e th e ba si s for bo th cl ai m s. Cf. Synerg et ic s, In c. v. Hu rs t, 4 77 F.3d 94 9, 95 9
( 8 t h Ci r. 20 07 ); Kan t v. Alt ay ar, 70 4 N.W .2d 53 7, 54 0 (Neb

. 20 05 ) (“ The sa me

wro ng fu l co nd uc t m ay

su pp or t a c iv il act io n b as ed on a th eo ry of ba tt ery as well as

an act io n ba se d up on th e in de pe nd en t to rt of in te nt io na l i n f li ct io n of em ot io na l

di st res s.”)

.

W e co n c l u d e t he re was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a reas on ab le jury to fin d th e

em pl oyee de fen da nt s br each ed th ei r du ty of lo y al ty. W hi le em pl oyed by W es t Pl ai ns , th e de fen da nt s in te nd ed to hi nd er CT Frei gh t’s bu s i n e ss su bs ta nt ia ll y by of feri ng

in si de r in fo rm at io n to RFG Log is ti cs , an d th en res ig ni ng as a g r o u p to en su re th e

cu st om ers fo ll owe d. As an affi rm at io n of th e du ti es o w ed to th ei r em pl oyer W es t

Pl ai ns , each of th e em

pl oyee de fen da nt s si gn ed an em pl oym en t ag reem en t pr om is in g

to av oi d pe rs on al co nf

li ct s of in te res ts an d im pr op er di st rib ut io n of co m pa ny

in f o r mat io n. Des pi te th at pr om is e, th e em pl oyee de fen da nt s act ed in co nc ert to

pr ov id e W el ls an d RFG Lo gi st ic s im po rta nt in fo rm at io n whi le th ey were st il l

em pl oyed by W es t Pl ai ns

. Sev en of th e em pl oyee de fen da nt s si gn ed co nf id en ti al it y

-1 4-an d co ns ul ti ng ag reem en ts wit h W el ls in vi ol at io n of th ei r W es t Pl ai ns ’ em pl oym en t

ag reem en ts

, an d fo ur of th os e de fen da nt s were act ua ll y pa id fo r th at wor k whi le st il l

wor ki ng for W es t Pl ai ns

. 7

The de fen da nt s arg ue th at ev en if th e br each of lo y al ty cl ai m s were up he ld

, th e

fo rfe i t u re award s ag ai ns t th e em pl oyee de fen da nt s were ex ces si ve

. “ ‘A n ag en t is

en ti tl ed to no co m

pe ns at io n fo r co nd uc t whi ch is di so be di en t or whi ch is a br each of

hi s d ut y of lo y al ty.’ ” Neece v. Sev era, 56 0 N.W .2d 86 8, 87 3 (Neb . C t. Ap p. 1 99 7)
(q uo ti ng Res ta te m en t (Sec on d) of Age nc y § 46 9 (1 95 8) ). The jury was in st ru ct ed th at

if it fo un d t he em

pl oyee de fen da nt s l ia bl e fo r br each of t he du ty of lo y al ty, it co ul d

c o n s id er “ whe th er Pl ai nt iff is en ti tl ed to reco ve r th e co m pe ns at io n it pa id to t h o s e

Defen da nt s who br each ed th ei r du ty of lo y al ty du rin g an y pe rio ds of di sl oyalt y whi le

em pl oyed wit h Pl ai nt iff

.” Here, th e jury req ui red su pe rv is or s Need ha m an d Dan ne r

an d al so Reb e c c a D a n n e r to pa y a to ta l of two m on th s’ sa la ry

. The jury req ui red

Sch ol ti ng to pa y on e-an d- a-h al f m on th s’ sa la ry , an d Rh on e, Payzant

, W ag go ne r, an d

Kon eck y each to pa y le ss th an on e m on th ’s sa la ry

. The de fen da nt s co nt en d req ui rin g

th e em pl oyee de fen da nt s “ to fo rfei t se ve ral m on th s of co m pe ns at io n, ev en du rin g

pe rio ds of lo y al co nd uc t, res ul te d in a win df al l reco ve ry to W es t Pl ai ns .” See Des ig n

St rat eg ie s, In c. v. D av is

, 38 4 F. Su pp

. 2d 64 9, 66 7 (S.D.N.Y. 20 05 ) (ap pr ov in g

fo rfei tu re of co m

pe ns at io n on ly du rin g pe rio ds of di sl oyal co nd uc t, br ok en do wn by

pa y pe rio ds ). W e di sa gr ee. Giv en th e ex te nt to whi ch each em pl oyee de fen da nt was

in vo lv ed in th e pl an ni ng of RFG Log is t i c s an d th e ti m e in whi ch th ey were so

co m m it te d, t he re was ad eq ua te su pp or t fo r eac h a ward

.

In ad di ti on to th e co nd uc t di sc us se d in th e pr ev io us se ct io n, th e jury he ard th at 7

Rh on e an d Kon eck y act iv el y as si st ed RFG Log is ti cs whi le th ey were st il l em pl oyed by W es t Pl ai ns

. Rh on e em ai le d h ers el f a s pr ead sh eet sh e d ev el op ed at West Pla in s

a n d a li st of de di cat ed Om ah a tru ck s. Bro ke rag e as si st an t Kon eck y pr ov id ed

cu st om er lo ad in fo rm at io n to Need ha m vi a in st an t m es sa ge on Feb ru ary 5, 20 13

, aft er Need ha m ha d res ig ne d an d was wor ki ng at RFG Log is ti cs an d whi le Kon eck y was
st il l wi th CT Frei gh t.

-1 5-3. Civ il Cons pi ra cy

“ ‘A ci vi l co ns pi racy is a co m bi na ti on of two or m or e pe rs on s to acco m pl is h by

co nc ert ed act io n an un la wfu l or op pr es si ve ob ject, or a la wfu l ob

ject by un la wfu l or

op pr es si ve m ean s.’” Dix on v. Rec on ci li at io n, In c., 29 1 N.W .2d 23 0, 23 2 (Neb

. 19 80 )
(q uo ti ng Pet ers v. W oo dma n Acci de nt & Life Co

., 10 4 N.W .2d 49 0, 49 6 (Neb

. 19 60 )). Liab il it y fo r a ci vi l co ns pi racy is pr ed ic at ed on th e ex is te nc e of an un de rlyin g
cl ai m

. See Kos te r , 5 3 9 N

. W. 2 d at 27 8. “ [B]y es ta bl is hi ng a ci vi l co ns pi racy, a pl ai nt iff ex te nd s li ab il it y fo r th e wro ng fu l act s un de rlyin g th e co ns pi r acy to th os e

act or s who di d no t act i v e l y e n g a ge in th e act s, bu t co ns pi red in th ei r co m m is si on .”

Uni te d Gen . Ti tl e In s. Co . v . M al on e, 85 8 N.W .2d 1 9 6

, 21 5 (Neb . 2 01 5)

. The jury

was in st ru ct ed th at W es t Pl ai ns was req ui red to pr ov e th e de fen da nt s co m m it te d “ on e

or m or e of th e fo ll owi ng un la wfu l a c t s a g ai ns t [West Pl ai ns ]:

. . . un jus ti fie d

in te rfer en ce wit h [West Pl ai ns ’] bu si ne ss r e l a t i o ns hi ps

. . . or br each of du ty of

lo y al ty to [West Pl ai ns ]. ” Bec au se th e in st ru ct io n di d no t r e q u i r e th e jury to

di st in gu is h be twee n whi ch un de rlyin g cl ai m s pr ov id ed th e ba s is fo r th e co ns pi racy
cl ai m , a fin di ng of li ab il it y on ei th er wou ld su pp or t th e co ns pi racy c l a i m. W es t

Pl ai ns th en was req ui red “ to pr ov e th e ex is te nc e of at le as t an im pl ie d a gr eem en t t o

es ta bl is h co ns pi racy.” de Nou rie & Yos t Hom es , LLC v. Fro st

, 85 4 N.W .2d 29 8, 31 6
(Neb

. 20 14 ). The re was ab un da nt ev id en ce sh owi ng th e de fen da nt s en te red in to an

ag reem en t to rti ou sl y to i n t e r f e r e wit h W es t Pl ai ns ’ bu si ne ss or to br each th ei r du ty

of lo y al ty.

-1 6-B. Mot io n fo r a New Tri al or Alte red o r Am ende d J udg m ent 8

A di st ric t co ur t m ay gr an t a ne w tri al “fo r an y reas on fo r whi ch a ne w tri al

ha s

. . . be en gr an te d in an act io n at law in fed eral co ur t.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 59 (a). “ A

m ot io n fo r ne w tri al is ad dr es se d to th e jud ic ia l di sc ret io n of th e tri al jud ge an d wil l

no t be rev ers ed e x c e p t f

o r a cl ear ab us e of th at di sc ret io n.” Alt ric ht er v. Sh el l Oil

Co ., 26 3 F .2d 37 7, 3 80 (8t h Cir. 19 59 ). The de fen da nt s ass ert th ey are en ti tl ed to a

ne w tri al be cau se (1 ) W es t Pl ai ns was im pr op erl y al lo wed t o p res en t ev id en ce
rel at in g to “ to ta l lo ss of bu si ne ss va lu e” da m ag es ; (2 ) W es t Pl ai ns ’ ex pe rt wit ne ss was

a l l o wed to gi ve an op in io n as to th e to ta l lo ss of CT Frei gh t; (3 ) th e ju r y w a s

i mpro pe rly in st ru ct ed on da m ag es ; (4 ) th e co rrec t m eas ur e of da m ag es is th e
di ffer en ce be twee n th e va lu e of th e bu si ne ss im m ed ia te ly be fo re an d aft er th e al le ge d

m is co nd uc t; (5 ) th e da m ag es award was ex ces si ve an d con tra ry to th e ev id en ce; (6 )

th e d e fen da nt s’ pr op os ed in st ru ct io n on th e effe ct of th e di st ric t co ur t’s te m po rary

in jun ct io n sh ou ld ha ve be en ad op te d; an d (7 ) W es t Pl ai ns fai le d to pr es en t su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce o f m it ig at io n o f da m ag es . W e ad dr es s ea ch arg um en t i n t ur n.

1. To ta l Lo ss of B us in es s Va lu e Damag es

Befo re tri al

, th e de fen da nt s fil ed a m ot io n i n l im in e se ek in g to ex cl ud e

ev id en ce of to ta l lo ss of va lu e da m ag es , whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

. The di st ric t

co u r t no te d ne it he r pa rty ha d pr ov id ed Neb ras ka au th or it y on th e is su e, an d th en
de te rm in ed Neb ras ka la w wou ld no t req ui re a pl ai nt iff “ to sh ow co mpl et e de st ru ct io n

as a [p rere qu is it e] to reco ve ry on a lo st va lu e th eo ry .” The de fe n d a n t s a r g ue th e
di st ric t co ur t erre d by pe rm it ti ng th e jury to co ns id er ev id en ce of to ta l lo ss of bu si ne ss

va lu e da m ag es —o r, in ot he r wor ds

, th e m ark et va lu e of a bu si ne ss at th e ti m e of th e

The de fen da nt s do no t as se rt an y in de pe nd en t gr ou nd s fo r rev ers al un de r Fed

. 8

R. Ci v. P. 59 (e). See In no va ti ve Hom e Heal th Care

, In c. v. P.T.-O.T. Ass oc s. of th e Bl ack Hil ls

, 14 1 F.3 d 12 84

, 12 86 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (ex pl ai ni ng m ot io ns to al te r or

am en d a jud gm en t “ se rv e a li m it ed fu nc ti on of co rrec ti ng ‘m an ife st erro rs of la w or fact or to pr es en t ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce’” (q uo ti ng Hag erm an v. Yuk on Ene rg y Co rp ., 83 9 F .2d 40 7, 4 14 (8t h C ir. 1 98 8) )).

-1 7-to rti ou s in te rfer en ce— be cau se CT Frei gh t’s bu si ne ss was no t co m pl et el y de st ro y ed

. See KMS Res ta ur an t Co rp . v. Wend y ’s Int ’l Inc ., 19 4 F . App ’x 5 91 , 6 01 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 06 ) (“ ‘[I] f a bu si ne ss is co m pl et el y de st ro y ed

, th e pr op er to ta l m eas ur e of da m ag es
is th e m ark et va lu e of th e bu si ne ss on th e da te of th e lo ss

. I f th e bu si ne ss is no t

co m pl et el y de st ro y ed , th en it m ay reco ve r lo st pr of it s. A b us in es s m ay

no t re co ve r
bo th lo st pr of

it s an d th e m ark et va lu e of th e bu si ne ss .’ ” (q uo ti ng Mo nt ag e Grp

. Ltd

.

v. Ath le -Tech Co m

pu t. Sys., Inc ., 88 9 S o. 2 d 1 80 , 19 3 (F la . Dis t. Ct . Ap p. 20 04 ))).

The de fen da nt s do ag ree Neb ras ka la w pr ov id es fo r reco ve ry of lo st pr of it s da m ag es

fo r to rti ou s in te rfer en ce of bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi ps

. S ee Trip le R In du s., In c. v.

Cen tu ry Lub ric at in g Oil s, In c., 91 2 F

. 2 d 23 4, 23 7- 38 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (“ Und er
Neb ras ka la w, ‘pr o s p e ct iv e pr of it s fro m an es ta bl is he d bu si ne ss , pr ev en te d or

in te rru pt ed by th e to rti ou s co nd uc t of th e de fen da nt

, are reco ve rab le whe n it is pr ov ed
(1 ) th at it is reas on ab ly cert ai n su ch pr of it s wou ld ha ve be en real iz ed ex cep t for th e

to rt, a n d ( 2 ) t h a t th e lo st pr of it s can be as cert ai ne d an d m eas ur ed

, fro m ev id en ce

in tro du ced

, wit h reas on ab le cert ai nt y .’ ” (q uo ti ng K & R, In c. v. Cret e St or ag e Co rp ., 23 1 N.W .2d 11 0, 11 4 (Neb

. 19 75 ))); se e al so ACI W or ld wid e Co rp

. v. Bal dwi n
Hack et t & Mee ks

, In c., 89 6 N.W .2d 15 6, 18 1, 19 5- 96 (Neb

. 20 17 ) (h ol di ng th e jury’ s
award of $4 3,8 06 ,36 2.7 0 fo r fu tu re lo st pr of it s was su pp or te d by su ffi ci en t ev id en ce).

As lo ng as th ere is “ su ffi ci en t ev id en ce” to sh ow “ a lo ss of pr of it s was su ffer ed

, it is

pr op er to le t th e jury de te rm in e wha t th e lo ss pr ob ab ly was fro m th e be st ev id en ce th e

na tu re of th e cas e al lo ws.” Gary ’s Im pl em en t, In c. v. Bri dg ep or t Tract or Part s, In c.,

79 9 N.W.2d 2 49 , 25 9 (Ne b. 2 01 1)

.

2. Wes t Pla in s’ Ex pert Tes timony

The de fen da nt s c o n t e nd th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by al lo win g W es t Pl ai ns ’

ex pe rt, W il li am Ken ed y , to of fer an op in io n on th e va lu e of CT Frei gh t at th e ti m e of

th e res ig na ti on s. “ Onl y if an exp ert ’s op in io n is so fu nd am en ta ll y un su pp or te d th at

it can of fer no as si st an ce to th e jury m us t su ch te st im on y be ex cl ud ed .” Katz en m ei er

v. Bl ack po wde r P r o d

. , In c., 62 8 F.3 d 94 8, 95 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Hos e v.
Ch ic ag o Nw. Tran sp . Co., 7 0 F .3d 96 8, 9 74 (8t h C ir.1 99 5) ).

-1 8-Fi rs t, Ken ed y c o n d u ct ed an an al y si s co m pa rin g th e rev en ue lo gg ed fro m CT

Frei gh t’s to p 20 cu st om ers in 20 12 an d 20 13

, an d co m pa red th os e fig ur es to RF G

Lo gi st ic ’s rev en ue fro m it s to p cu st om ers in 20 13

. Ken ed y ex pl ai ne d: “ M a r c h o f

20 13 a n d Apr il of 20 13 is whe n CT Frei gh t’s rev en ue fro m th es e to p 20 cu st om ers

effe ct iv el y , fo r th e m os t pa rt, di sa pp ears

. And th en su dd en ly in Apr il of 20 13

, RFG,

whi ch pr e v i o u s l y ha dn ’t ha d m uc h sa le s, ha s sa le s fro m th es e sa m e cu st om ers .”

Ken ed y co nt in ue d, ba se d on th e m on th -b y -m on th fin an ci al st at em en ts fo r CT Frei gh t

in 20 13

, aft er th e em

pl oyees’ res ig na ti on , “ th at effe ct iv el y th e bu si ne ss of CT Frei gh t

at th at po in t in ti m e was

. . . effe ct iv el y a to ta l lo ss

. The en ti re co m pa ny—th e va lu e

of th e co m

pa ny was go ne ba se d on th at tra ns act io n.” Fro m rev ie win g RFG Log is ti cs ’

co rres po nd in g “ fin an ci a l st at em en ts an d

. . . m on th ly sa le s- by-cus to m er rep or ts ,”

Ken ed y te st ifi ed th at aft er Feb ru ary 20 13

, RFG Log is ti cs “ was a pr of it ab le bu si ne ss

an d i t h ad si gn ifi can t s al es th at were p rev io us ly CT Freig ht ’s.”

Seco nd

, Ken ed y of

fere d hi s op in io n as to th e va lu e of CT Frei gh t in Feb ru ary

20 13

. Acco rd in g t o Ken ed y , bef or e Feb ru ary 5, 2 01 3, t he va lu e of CT Frei gh t was $ 2,1 31 ,00 0, ba se d up on “ th e va lu e of fu tu re pr of it s.” Ken ed y al so st at ed be t w e e n
Feb ru ary an d Oct ob er 1 3, 2 01 3, CT Frei gh t su ffer ed $3 30 ,00 0 in act ua l l os se s as it

tri ed “ to m it ig at e th e da m ag e an d reb ui ld th e bu si ne ss .” To fo rm ul at e hi s op in io n, he

co m pa red CT Frei gh t’s fin an ci al res ul ts an d cu st om er m ix fro m th e y ears 20 11

, 20 12

, 20 13

, an d 2 0 1 4

. K e n ed y al so co ns id ered ov erh ead

, ex pe ns es , sa la rie s, as well as
di s c u s si on s wit h m an ag em en t, rev en ue by cu st om er, in du st ry tre nd s, an d ex pe ct ed

gr owt h rat es

. Bas ed on hi s rev ie w of th at in fo rm at io n, he co nc lu de d CT Frei gh t was

“ un ab le to m ak e a pr of

it go in g fo rward fro m th e da te of th i s i n c i d e n t a ll th e way

th ro ug h 20 14

. So

. . . t ha t is im po rta nt to m e to say tha t i t was a to ta l lo ss .” Giv en

th e fo un da ti on pr ov id ed in Ken ed y ’s a n a l ysi s, we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t

co m m it te d no err o r i n a ll owi ng W es t Pl ai ns to of fer Ken ed y ’s op in io ns

. See, e.g ., W a s h S o l s

. , In c. v. PDQ Mfg

., In c., 39 5 F.3 d 88 8, 89 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ Fo r

es ta bl is he d bu si ne ss es , ex pe ct ed fu tu re pr of it s m ay be ex tra po la te d wit h reas on ab le

-1 9-cert ai nt y

fro m hi st or ic al ev id en ce of th e in co m e an d ex pe ns es of t he bu si ne ss pri or

to th e d am ag in g e ve nt .”).

3. Ju ry Ins truc tio ns
The de fen da nt s co nt en d th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to in st ru ct pr op erl y th e jury on

th e is su e o f d am ag es

. “ App el la te rev ie w of a di st ric t co ur t’s jury in st ru ct io ns ‘is

li m it ed to whe th er th e in st ru ct io ns , vi ewed on t h e w h o le

, fai rly an d ad eq ua te ly

rep res en t th e ev id en ce an d ap pl ic ab le la w in li gh t of th e is su es pr es en te d to th e jury

in a pa rti cu la r cas e.’” R o s s v

. G a rn er Pri nt in g Co

., 28 5 F.3 d 11 06

, 11 11 (8 th Ci r.

20 02 ) (q uo ti ng Om eg a Heal th care Inv ’rs, Inc . v . La nt is Ent ers ., Inc ., 25 6 F .3d 77 4,

77 6 (8 th Cir . 20 01 )).

Afte r th e pa rti es ha d co nc lu de d m ak in g th ei r fo rm al ob jecti on s in reg ard to th e jury in st ru ct io ns an d ve rd ic t fo rm , th e di st ric t co ur t as ke d whe th er “ th ere [was ]

an y th in g el se we ne ed to ta lk ab ou t be f o r e t h e ju ry co m es in ? ” The de fen da nt s

an swe red y es , an d ask ed for an in st ru ct io n to “ te ll th e pa rti es th at it can no t refer [in

cl os in g arg um en t] to lo st as se t of th e bu si ne ss .” Ove rru li ng th e ob jecti on , th e di st ric t

co ur t res po nd ed by fir st no ti ng it ha d pr ev io us ly ad dr es se d th e da m ag es is su e whe n
de nyin g th e de fen da nt s’ m ot io n in li m in e, an d fu rth er ex pl ai ne d th e jury in st ru ct io ns

on da m ag es ha d be en “ le ft fai rly op en in te nt io na ll y .” The di st ric t co ur t st at ed : “ W he n

we were in ch am

be rs in th e in fo rm a l ju r y i n s tru ct io n co nf eren ce, th ere was no
di sc us si on ab ou t th is

. The re were no arg um en ts ab ou t th e in st ru ct io ns as th ey rel at ed

to da m ag es

. And it wil l be up to t h e ju r y t o d e ci de wha t wil l fai rly an d reas on ab ly

co m pe ns at e [th e] pl ai nt iff fo r it s in jury if th ey fin d li ab il it y in th is cas e.” Our rev ie w
of th is ex ch an ge le a d s u s t o co nc lu de th e de fen da nt s di d no t fo rm al ly ob ject to th e jury in st ru ct io ns th ey ch al le ng e he re an d th us fai le d pro pe rly to rai se th e is su e. See

Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 51 (b )(2 ), (c)( 2)

. Bec au se th e de fen da nt s fai le d fo rm al ly to ob ject, “ we

rev ie w fo r pl ai n e rro r on ly.” G reas er v

. St at e of Mo

., Dep ’t of Co rr., 14 5 F.3d 97 9,

98 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ). “ [W] e m ay gr an t pl ai n erro r r e l i e f w h e n in st ru ct io na l erro r is
pl ai n, affe ct s a pa rty’ s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, an d ‘seri o u s l y affe ct [ed ] th e fai rn es s,

-2 0-in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .’ ” Mo or e v. Am

. Fam il y Mu t.

In s. Co

., 57 6 F.3 d 78 1, 78 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (s eco nd a l t e rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng
Ced ar Hil l Hard ware & Co ns t. Su pp ly, In c. v. In s. Co rp

. of Han no ve r, 56 3 F.3 d 32 9,

35 1 (8 th Cir . 20 09 )).

The de fen da nt s ch al le ng e two in st ru ct io ns

. The fir st

, No. 21

, st at ed in rel ev an t

pa rt:

If y ou ret ur n a ve rd ic t fo r [West Pl ai ns ] on an y of it s cl ai m s, th en

y ou m us t de ci de ho w m

uc h m on ey wil l r e a s o n a bl y an d fai rly

co m pe ns at e [West Pl ai ns ] fo r it s in ju r y. R em em

be r, th ro ug ho ut y ou r de li be rat io ns y ou m

us t no t en ga ge in an y sp ecu la ti o n , gu es s, or

co njec tu re an d y ou m

us t no t award an y da m ag es by way of pu ni sh m en t

or th r ou gh sym

pa th y

. Alt ho ug h [West Pl ai ns ] se ek s reco ve ry of
da m ag es on fo ur th eo rie s, y ou m an y as se ss on ly on e reco ve ry

. If y ou fin d fo r [West Pl a i n s ] o n o n e or m or e of th e th eo rie s, an y ve rd ic t fo r [West Pl ai ns ] m

us t be in a si ng le am ou nt an d th ere can be no du pl ic at io n of [th e] dam ag e.

The se co nd

, No. 22

, fu rth er in st ru ct ed th at if th e ju r y f o u n d l i ab il it y , W es t Pl ai ns

wou ld be “ en ti tl ed to th e reas on ab le va lu e of th e pr of it s [West Pl ai ns ] ha s lo st an d is

reas on ab ly cert ai n to lo se in th e fu tu re as a res ul t of [th e ] D e fen da nt [s ’] un la wfu l

co nd uc t.” Th e i n s t r u c ti on ex pl ai ne d th e bu rd en was on W es t Pl ai ns to pr ov e “ it is

reas on ab ly cert ai n su ch pr of it s wou ld ha ve be en real iz ed ex cep t fo r th e Defen da nt s’

un la wfu l co nd uc t,” an d “ th e lo st pr of i t s can be as cert ai ne d an d m eas ur ed

, fro m

ev id en ce i nt ro du ced , wit h re as on ab le cert ai nt y .”

Th e d efen da nt s cl ai m th es e in st ru ct io ns fo rced juro rs to m ak e an “ ‘all or

no th in g de ci si on ,’ ” le ad in g to a win df al l r eco ve ry fo r W es t Pl ai ns

. W e di sa gr ee.

W hi le th e in st ru ct io ns , as th e di st ric t co ur t ad m it te d, are cert ai nl y br oa d, th e di st ric t

co u r t a d e q u a te ly i ns tru ct ed th e jury o n Neb ras ka la w, a nd to ld th e jury it co ul d no t

-2 1-ba se it s award on sp ecu la ti on

. W e co nc lu de an y erro r was no t so pl ai n as to warra nt

a n ew tr ia l.

4. Damag es Aw ar d

The de fen da nt s ne xt ch al le ng e th e jury’ s ge nera l co m pe nsato ry da m ag es award

of $1

, 5 1 3

, 0 00

, arg ui ng th e am ou nt is ex ces si ve an d co nt rary to th e weig ht of th e

ev id en ce. “ W he n pr es en te d wit h a qu es ti on as to whe th er a st at e la w cl ai m da m ag e

9

award is ex ces si ve , st at e su bs ta nt iv e la w gu id es ou r rev ie w.” Hur st

, 47 7 F.3 d at 96 0.

Und er Neb ras ka la w, “ [i]n or de r fo r an award to be so ex ces si ve as to warra nt a ne w
tri al

, it m us t be so cl earl y ag ai ns t th e weig ht an d reas on ab le ne ss of th e ev id en ce an d

so di sp ro po rti on at e as to in di cat e th at it was th e res ul t of pa ss io n, pr ejud ic e, m is ta ke

,

or so m e m ean s no t ap pa ren t in th e reco rd , o r th at th e jury d is reg ard ed th e ev id en ce

or rul es of la w.” Sh ip le r v. Gen . M ot or s Co rp ., 7 10 N.W .2d 80 7, 8 40 (Neb . 20 06 ).

In Hur st

, we up he ld th e jury’ s award of $1 ,75 9,1 65 in da mag e s fo r to rti ou s

in te rfer en ce an d br each of lo y al ty cl ai m s. See Hur st

, 47 7 F.3 d at 96 0. W e reas on ed

it was “ ob vi ou s th at th e jury be li ev ed an d rel ie d up on ” th e pl ai nt iff ’s ex pe rt wit ne ss , who cal cu la te d t he am ou nt of eco no m ic da m ag es su ffer ed by the pl ai nt iff ba se d o n

th e pl ai nt iff ’s “ lo st pr of

it s fro m sa le s, pr ic e ero si on , an d ou t-o f-p oc ke t ex pe ns es .” Id

.

Here, th e jury’ s award of $1 ,51 3,0 00 in co m pe ns at or y da m ag es is co ns id erab ly

le ss th an wha t Ken ed y te st ifi ed was th e to ta l va lu e o f t h e bu si ne ss be fo re th e

res i g n a ti on s an d refl ect s an am ou nt a reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve be li ev ed wou ld

fai rly co m

pe ns at e W es t Pl ai ns fo r da m ag es it su st ai ne d as a res ul t of th e de fen da nt s’

to rti ou s co nd uc t. See W

. Fi rep ro of in g Co

. v. W .R. Grace & Co

., 89 6 F.2 d 28 6, 29 2
(8 t h C i r

. 1 99 0) (fi nd in g “ no ba si s in th e reco rd ” to di sr eg ard th e jury’ s award of

m ark et va lu e da m ag es cau se d by to rti ou s in te rfer en ce of d e f e n d an t (in te rp ret in g

The ve rd ic t fo rm si m

pl y as ke d, “ If y ou fo un d in fav or of [West Pl ai ns ] on an y 9

of th e cl ai m s

. . . wha t is th e to ta l am ou nt of da m ag es , if an y , th at wil l reas on ab ly an d
fai rly co m

pe ns at e [West Pl ai ns ] fo r it s in jury cau se d by

. . . th e Defen da nt s’ un la wfu l

co nd uc t b as ed on th e in st ru ct io ns pro vi de d i n In st ru ct io n No . 21 ? ”

-2 2-Mi ss ou ri la w)). In 20 12

, CT Frei gh t m ad e a to ta l of ov er $1 9 mi l l io n in sa le s

rev en ue , av erag in g be twee n $1 .4 an d $1 .8 mi l l i o n i n sa le s rev en ue pe r m on th

, an d

real iz in g an $8 31 ,48 8.2 7 pr of it fo r th e y ear. In co m

pa ris on , th e m on th l y s al es

rev en ue dr as ti cal ly dr op pe d aft er Feb ru ary 20 13

, res ul ti ng in on ly $7 .5 m il li on to ta l

an nu al sa le s an d a $1 37 ,36 4.8 5 lo ss fo r th e CT Frei gh t di vi si on th at y ear. Bas ed on

th e ev id en ce W es t Pl ai ns pr od uc ed at tri al

, we are sa ti sf ie d th e jury’ s award was no t

ba se d on im

pr op er reas on in g. See Ro th v. W ie se , 71 6 N.W .2d 41 9, 43 6 (Neb

. 20 06 )
(“ The am ou nt of da m ag es to be award ed is a de te rm in at io n so le ly fo r th e fact fin de r,

an d it s act io n in th is res pe ct wil l no t be di st ur be d on ap pe al if it is su p p or te d by

ev id en ce an d be ars a reas on ab le rel at io ns hi p to th e el em en ts of th e da m ag es

pr ov ed .”).

5. Pro po se d J ury Ins truc tio n

W e al so r e

je c t t h e de fen da nt s’ arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve

in cl ud ed th ei r pr op os ed ju r y i n s t ru ct io n rel at in g to th e effe ct of th e te m po rary

in jun ct io n th at was li fte d on Apr il 5, 20 13

. “ A pa rty ‘is no t en ti tl ed to a pa rti cu la rly

wor de d in st ru ct io n.’” Ret z v. Seat on , 74 1 F.3 d 91 3, 91 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo t in g
Uni te d St at es v. Mea ds

, 47 9 F.3 d 59 8, 60 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )). “ ‘O ur rev ie w is li m it ed

to a de te rm in at io n of whe th er th e in st ru ct io ns fai rly an d accu rat el y p r e s e nt th e

ev id en ce an d la w to th e jury gi ve n th e is su es in th e cas e.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Ede n Elec

., Ltd

. v. Am an a Co

., 37 0 F.3 d 82 4, 82 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )). The pr op os ed in st ru ct io n, No.

35 , st at ed :

Fro m Feb ru ary 12

, 20 13 un ti l Apr il 5, 20 13

, Defen da n t s were

en joi n e d

, o r pr oh ib it ed

, by th is Co ur t fro m co m pe ti ng fo r th e sa m e

cu st om ers an d carri ers se rv ic ed by [W es t Pl ai ns ]. After Apri l 5, 20 13

, Defen da nt s were a l l owe d to la wfu ll y co m pe te fo r th e sa m e cu st om ers

an d carr ie rs se rv ic ed by [West Pl ai ns ]. If y ou are co ns id eri ng award in g [West Pl ai ns ] an y lo st pr of it da m ag es , Defen da nt s are no t li ab le fo r an y lo st pro fit da m ag es aft er Ap ril 5, 2 01 3.

-2 3-Fo r th e sa m e reas on s pr ev io us ly di sc us se d, th e di st ric t co ur t was no t req ui red to li m it

fu rth er th e ti m e pe rio d un de r whi ch th e jury co ul d fin d W es t Plai ns su st ai ne d ha rm

.

6. Mit ig at io n Ev id ence

Fi na ll y , th e de fen da nt s cl ai m W es t Pl ai ns fai le d to pr es en t su ffi ci en t ev id en ce
sh owi ng it at te m

pt ed to m it ig at e it s da m ag es aft er th e em pl oyee de f

e n d a nt s’

res ig na ti on s. “ ‘A pl ai nt iff ’s fai lu re to ta ke reas on ab le st ep s to m it ig at e da m ag es ba rs

reco ve ry , no t in to to

, bu t o n ly fo r th e da m ag es whi ch m ig ht ha ve be en av oi de d by

reas on ab le effo rts .’ ” Ted d Bi sh Farm

, In c. v. Sw. Fen ci ng Serv s., LLC, 86 7 N.W .2d

26 5, 27 1 (Neb

. 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Bo rle y St or ag e & Tran sf er Co

. v. W hi tt ed

, 71 0

N.W .2d 71

, 80 (Neb

. 20 06 )). W es t Pl ai ns to ok st ep s to m it ig a t e d a mag es by

im m ed ia te ly tra ns ferr in g em pl oyees fro m an ot he r div isi on to CT Fr ei ght

, de sp it e th ei r

la ck of ex pe rie nc e in th e bu lk ho pp er in du st ry

. W es t Pl ai ns co nt act ed it s cu st om ers

ta ke n by t h e d e f

e n d a nt s in an effo rt to ret ai n th ei r bu si ne ss

. The ne w m an ag em en t

hi red at CT Frei gh t ex pa nd ed th e bu si ne ss in to ot he r se ct or s of th e frei gh t br ok erag e

i nd us try, li ke dr y va n an d refr ig erat ed go od s. Co ns id eri ng th e co m pe ti ti ve , rel at io ns hi p- ba se d nat ur e of th e in du st ry , it was reas on ab le CT Frei gh t wou ld try to

ex pa nd in to ne w se ct or s, in ad di ti on to reb ui ld in g it s cu s to m er ba se in th e bu lk

ho pp er i nd us try.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e aff irm in all res pe ct s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2 4-