United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-2650

___________________________

West Plains, L.L.C., doing business as CT Freight Company

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Retzlaff Grain Company Incorporated, doing business as RFG Logistics; Bryce

Wells; Jeffrey Bradley; Thomas Danner; Rebecca Danner; Jody May; Chad

Needham; Todd Payzant; Samantha Rhone; Crystal Konecky; Cindy Scholting;

Drew Waggoner

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________

 Submitted: May 10, 2017

 Filed: August 30, 2017

____________

Before RILEY, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

RILEY, Circuit Judge

On February 5, 2013, ten individuals resigned from CT Freight Services, a

division of West Plains, L.L.C. (West Plains), to join a start-up freight brokerage

operation founded by Bryce Wells, the former owner of West Plains. West Plains
sued. The district court granted a temporary restraining order followed by a

1

preliminary injunction against Retzlaff Grain Company (RFG Logistics), prohibiting

RFG Logistics from soliciting CT Freight’s customers until April 5, 2013. The case

proceeded to trial, and a jury found the defendants liable for tortious interference with

business relationships and breach of the duty of loyalty. The jury awarded West

Plains $1,513,000 and required nine of the ten employees to forfeit portions of

compensation received from West Plains. The defendants renewed their motion for

judgment as a matter of law and moved for a new trial or amended judgment. The

district court denied the motions, and the defendants seek reversal. We affirm. See

28 U.S.C. § 1291 (appellate jurisdiction).

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background2

Bryce Wells was president and shareholder of West Plains Company, an

agricultural commodity trading business. In February 2012, Wells sold West Plains

Company to West Plains, L.L.C. (West Plains), but declined an offer to stay with

West Plains as chief financial officer. West Plains continued to operate the same

business units as West Plains Company. One of those business units was a small

freight brokerage operation called CT Freight. CT Freight’s primary source of

revenue wasshipping dry commodities, referred to by the parties asthe “bulk hopper”

industry. The bulk hopper business comprised about 90 percent of CT Freight’s

annual revenue, and CT Freight’s top 20 customers generated roughly 70-75 percent

of CT Freight’s overall revenue.

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, Chief Judge, United States District Court

1

for the District of Nebraska.

“In conducting our review, we consider the evidence in the light most

2

favorable to the jury verdict.” Craig Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. Viacom Outdoor, Inc.,

528 F.3d 1001, 1009 (8th Cir. 2008). 

-2-
At the time of the sale, Thomas Danner and Rebecca Danner (Danners), Jeff

Bradley, Chad Needham, Todd Payzant, Samantha Rhone, Crystal Konecky, Cindy

Scholting, Drew Waggoner, (the employee defendants) and Jody May were 3

employees of West Plains Company. Needham supervised CT Freight’s Omaha

office, and Thomas Danner (Danner) supervised another office in Manning, Iowa. 

The employee defendants all accepted employment with West Plains, and they

continued to work in the same positions they held at CT Freight before the sale, with

the exception of May. The employee defendants each signed the West Plains

Employee Handbook, which prohibited employees from engaging in conflicts of

interest and disclosing confidential information to a competitor. 

About eight months later, in October 2012, Wells began forming a competing

freight brokerage operation, Retzlaff Grain Company, which did business as RFG

Logistics. Wells first recruited Scholting, CT Freight’s administrative supervisor,

Danner and his wife Rebecca, and Needham. Those four individuals signed

confidentiality and consulting agreements with Wellsin October or November 2012. 

In exchange for providing Wells information about CT Freight’s operations, Wells

paid them each a $5,000 consulting fee. 

From the time they signed their agreements with Wells to their eventual

resignations, Scholting, Needham, and Danner extensivelycommunicated withWells,

closely working with him to organize the details of RFG Logistics. Scholting

provided Wells with insight on the dynamics of the CT Freight team and advised him

on the best method to recruit the team. Eventually, the supervisors began to recruit

the employees. In December, Danner recruited Bradley, a freight broker in the

Manning office. In early January 2013, Needham and Wellsrecruited freight brokers

Although May was included in this appeal, the jury found she was not liable

3

on all of the claims brought against her. Therefore, we do not include her in our

grouping of the employee defendants.

-3-
Waggoner and Payzant and brokerage assistant Rhone. Bradley, Waggoner, and

Payzant signed confidentiality and consulting agreements with Wells. By the end of

January, the employee defendants had all committed to leaving CT Freight for RFG

Logistics. Wells secured an office location in Omaha, and the Danners secured a

location in Carroll, Iowa. The plan was in place.

On February 5, 2013, the employee defendants submitted resignations fromCT

Freight via email. The Danners, Needham, and Payzant announced their resignations

were effective immediately. Waggoner, Scholting, and Konecky offered to remain

working for CT Freight for approximately one week. Bradley offered to stay until

February 8, 2013, and May offered to stay for two weeks. Upon receiving notices of

the resignations, West Plains’ regional manager summoned Waggoner, May, Rhone,

and Konecky to a meeting and directed them to hand over their work cell phones and

keys and told them they were free to leave. Scholting was not told to leave. Later

that afternoon, Konecky and Waggoner were asked to return to assist customers while

West Plains scrambled to find replacements. Scholting, Konecky, and Waggoner

remained at CT Freight until February 8, when they declined to sign a two-year noncompete agreement and were told to leave. 

B. Procedural History

On February 8, 2013, West Plains brought this suit alleging claims of

(1) misappropriation of trade secrets against all defendants; (2) tortious interference

with business relationships against all defendants; (3) tortious interference with

employment relationships against Wells and RFG Logistics; (4) breach of the duty

of loyalty against the employee defendants; (5) civil conspiracy against all

defendants; and (6) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,

18 U.S.C. § 1030, against Needham. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (diversity jurisdiction). 

Four days later, the district court granted a temporary restraining order against the

defendants prohibiting themfromcontacting and providing freight brokerage services

for the customers and carriers of CT Freight until further order and ordering the

-4-
defendants to return any original documents and records taken from West Plains. On

February 26, the district court entered a preliminary injunction extending the terms

of the restraining order until April 5, 2013. 

In June 2015, the defendants moved for partial summary judgment. The district

court concluded Wells (and RFG Logistics) lawfully solicited the employee

defendants to join RFG Logistics and granted summary judgment on the claim for

tortious interference with employment relationships. The district court also granted

summary judgment on the claim against Needham under the Computer Fraud and

Abuse Act, but denied summary judgment on the claims for misappropriation of trade

secrets and tortious interference with business relationships. In anticipation of trial,

the defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to CT Freight’s

“‘total loss of value’” and lost profits after the injunction expired. The district court

denied the motion, reasoning claim-specific issues would have to be resolved at trial. 

Trial took place before a jury over seven days in January 2016. West Plains

called Wells and each of the employee defendants. The district court received into

evidence several hundred pages of exhibits, including instant messages and emails

exchanged among the defendants and photocopies of the employee defendants’

contact lists taken from West Plains. To prove its damages, West Plains called an

expert witness who, over the defendants’ objection, testified asto the value of the CT

Freight division before resignations in February 2013. From reviewing financial

statements and customer reports,the expert concluded RFG Logistics was a profitable

business in its first month and executed “significant sales that were previously CT

Freight’s.” At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendants moved for judgment

as a matter of law, which the district court denied. 

The jury returned a verdict in favor of West Plains on the tortious interference

with business relationships claims against all defendants except May, Rhone, and

Konecky. The jury also found all employee defendants breached their duty of loyalty

-5-
and all defendants except May entered into a civil conspiracy. The jury awarded

$1,513,000 in compensatory damages and required forfeiture of compensation against

the employee defendants in varying amounts, totaling $51,787.50. The defendants

4

renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively, to amend the

judgment, or for a new trial. The district court denied the motions, and the defendants

appeal. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Judgment as a Matter of Law

Judgment as a matter of law should be granted where “the court finds that a

reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the

party on that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). We review de novo the denial of the

defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, “viewing the evidence

‘in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed before the jury.’” Wilson v.

Brinker Int’l, Inc., 382 F.3d 765, 769 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting City of Omaha Emps.

Betterment Ass’n v. City of Omaha, 883 F.2d 650, 651 (8th Cir. 1989)). 

1. Tortious Interference with Business Relationships

To prove tortious interference with a businessrelationship under Nebraska law,

West Plains must demonstrate:

“(1) the existence of a valid business relationship or expectancy,

(2) knowledge by the interferer of the relationship or expectancy, (3) an

unjustified intentional act of interference on the part of the interferer,

The jury determined the following amounts of compensation should be 4

forfeited and awarded to West Plains: $3,333 against Bradley; $15,000 against

Thomas Danner; $5,832 against Rebecca Danner; $13,666 against Needham;

$2,291.50 against Payzant; $1,666.50 against Rhone; $1,666.50 against Konecky;

$6,249 against Scholting; and $2,083 against Waggoner. 

-6-
(4) proof that the interference caused the harm sustained, and (5)

damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy was disrupted.”

Huff v. Swartz, 606 N.W.2d 461, 466 (Neb. 2000) (quoting Koster v. P & P Enters.,

539 N.W.2d 274, 278-79 (Neb. 1995)). “In order to be actionable, interference with

a business relationship must be both intentional and unjustified.” Aon Consulting,

Inc. v. Midlands Fin. Benefits, Inc., 748 N.W.2d 626, 645 (Neb. 2008); see also

Lamar Co. v. City of Fremont, 771 N.W.2d 894, 906 (Neb. 2009) (“An intentional,

but justified, act of interference will not subject the interferer to liability.”). 

Nebraska has adopted the factors of § 767 of the Restatement (Second) of

Torts to determine whether such interference was proper. See Huff, 606 N.W.2d at

468. In this case, the jury was instructed to consider the factors under § 767, which

are:

“(a) the nature of the actor’s conduct, (b) the actor’s motive, (c) the

interests of the other with which the actor’s conduct interferes, (d) the

interests sought to be advanced by the actor, (e) the social interests in

protecting the freedomof action ofthe actor and the contractual interests

of the other, (f) the proximity or remoteness of the actor’s conduct to the

interference and (g) the relations between the parties.”

Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 767 (1979)). The factors of § 767 are

“to be weighed against each other and balanced in arriving at a judgment; but they do

not exhaust the list of possible factors.” Recio v. Evers, 771 N.W.2d 121, 132 (Neb.

2009). Upon proving the actions of the interferer were unjust, West Plains was

required to show those actions “induce[d] or cause[d] a breach or termination of the

[business] relationship[s].” Id. at 131. In their appeal, the defendants raise

challenges as to whether their conduct amounted to unjust interference and whether

-7-
West Plains proved their conduct proximately caused West Plains’ damages after the

expiration of the temporary injunction on April 5, 2013.

5

a. Acts of Unjust Interference 

We begin by evaluating whether there was sufficient evidence to find Wells,

and, by extension, RFG Logistics, committed unjust acts of interference. See, e.g.,

Wiekhorst Bros. Excavating & Equip. Co. v. Ludewig, 529 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Neb.

1995) (“Corporations act through their agents, and the acts of an agent are the acts of

the corporation.”). Considering the factors of § 767, we think a jury could find Wells

unjustly interfered with West Plains’ business relationships by knowingly paying,

recruiting, and seizing CT Freight’s workforce, infrastructure, and customer

relationships. Wells knew the competitive freight brokerage industry relies on

established relationships among brokers, customers, and carriers. In other words, if

Wells could recruit the freight brokers, administrators, and assistants from CT

Freight, he could once again own West Plains’ small, but profitable, CT Freight

division without paying for it, merely eight months after he sold that businessto West

Plains, L.L.C. Wells paid the Danners, Scholting, and Needham a total of $20,000

in exchange for providing him confidential information about CT Freight and asked

seven of the ten individuals to sign confidentiality agreements with him. 

Wells ostensibly attempted to avoid some legal consequences by emailing

“Transition Rules” to May, Scholting, Danner, and Needham, instructing them to

The defendants have not challenged the district court’s conclusion that the

5

evidence was sufficient for the jury to find West Plains had a valid business

expectancy in continuing its relationships with its current customers. The district

court determined, “[a]lthough Nebraska law is not fully developed on this point, it is

true that proving a business expectancy ‘valid’ will generally require proof that there

was a reasonable likelihood or probability of a businessrelationship.” Infogroup Inc.

v. Database LLC, 95 F. Supp. 3d 1170, 1196 (D. Neb. 2015). 

-8-
refrain from soliciting CT Freight’s customers and not to take anything from CT

Freight. West Plains agrees there could have been a scenario in which Wells’

recruitment of the employee defendants was legal. See Lamar Co., 771 N.W.2d at

906. But, rather than recruit each employee defendant individually, Wells paid and

recruited CT Freight’s leaders and put into a place a plan that effectively would

remove CT Freight’s business to RFG Logistics. 

On the topic of customer retention, the defendants’ expert testified, “The

customers are looking for capacity to move their freight.” Due to the group

resignation, CT Freight immediately lost its capacity to broker large quantities of

freight. The jury could infer Wells understood that by instructing the employee

defendants to resign simultaneously and bring their customers to RFG Logistics, he

could eliminate CT Freight from competition. 

Likewise, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings against

the Danners, Bradley, Needham, Payzant, Scholting, and Waggoner. Wells was

primarily responsible for setting up RFG Logistics, but the employee defendants took

it upon themselves to take CT Freight’s customer lists, documents, and confidential

information secretly for the immediate benefit of RFG Logistics. During the middle

6

Bradley sent all of his contacts saved on his West Plains cell phone to his

6

personal email address and took his rolodex with customer information with him on

the day he resigned. He also downloaded from his computer documents containing

customer information on a flash drive for his use at RFG Logistics. Payzant took his

personal notebook containing notes of customer rates, preferences, and load

information. Payzant emailed Danner and Bradley a spreadsheet he had created

containing various rates and quotes that he “thought . . . might be handy as a quick

reference guide at a glance.” Payzant also sent variousrates and attachmentsrelating

to one of CT Freight’s customers from his work email to his personal email for later

use. Needham took a notebook where he had recorded all of his regular entries for

Land O’Lakes, “a paper trail for myself,” as he described. The Danners both took

personal rolodexes containing customer and carrier contacts. Scholting told Wells

-9-
of a work day, Waggoner told Payzant over an instant message that he had been

sending to his personal email various West Plains documents, including carrier rates,

customer information and other things “that wlli [sic] be lost in the transition.”

Waggoner then suggested the “best way to do it is actually send it to yourself at your

work email but then BCC it to your personal.” Payzant responded: “good idea.” On

January 15, around 5 p.m., Waggoner wrote to Payzant, “Chad said if you want

anything for the new office from here like notes make sure to start taking out slowly.” 

Payzant asked, “little black books right?” Waggoner replied, “exactly . . . stuff like

you just said that you will want . . . just in case they get all pissy when we actually

leave.” When Payzant responded doing so “would be grounds for legal action,”

Waggoner replied, “thats [sic] why you get it before they pay attention.” 

The defendants also made sure their planned departure would not disrupt their

business with their existing customers, whom they admittedly planned to bring with

them the moment they left CT Freight. In 2012, CT Freight’s two largest customers

were Land O’Lakes and Nestle. Land O’Lakes brought in over $6,000,000 in revenue

that year, and Nestle brought in $2,864,000. Needhammanaged the relationship with

Land O’Lakes, and Danner managed the relationship with Nestle, as well asthe third

largest customer, Scoular. Both Needham and Danner took steps to ensure that the

business was coming with them when they left for RFG Logistics. Danner told Wells

in an email:

The large companies such as Land O Lakes [sic] & Nestle do not react

promptly and we don’t want to be in limbo for a week or two while they

figure it out, identify and give us their blessing to continue our current

business under our new name of RFG Logistics. We may want to

which software to purchase and assisted him with setting up RFG Logistics’

accounting system. Scholting admitted to pulling up Excel files containing CT

Freight’s 2011 and 2012 load analysis on her RFG Logistics computer. 

-10-
identify any and all customers that maybe [sic] slow in reacting to a

name change and get them squared away long before crunch time. 

As Danner affirmed in his testimony, the plan was to get CT Freight’s business

switched over to RFG Logistics as quickly as possible. As early as January 3,

Needham assured Waggoner that Land O’Lakes “will be in place before I leave.” 

Although Land O’Lakesrepresentative Kevin Zimiski stated Needhamnever solicited

business on behalf of RFG Logistics before February 5, 2013, Needham sent a new

brokerage agreement to Zimiski on February 1, 2013, days before Needham’s

resignation from CT Freight. Needham also discussed with Waggoner how to let a

frequently used carrier know what was going on “so he is ready,” and how to get

ready to move another customer’s business, ConAgra, “with out [sic] tipping our

hand.” 

While there was nothing unjust about the employee defendants’ choice to leave

at-will employment with West Plains, there was evidence the employee defendants

knew and understood their group resignation would decimate CT Freight. When

Waggoner expressed concern about leaving CT Freight for RFG Logistics, writing

to Needham in an instant message that the “whole thing” was “honestly a bit scary,”

Needham plainly stated, “yes but the problem is that there will be no CT Freight.” 

(Emphasis added). Payzant expressed a similar sentiment, telling Waggoner via

instant message there was “almost like no choice but to drink the punch.” Based on

the nature and intent of their actions, a jury could reasonably find the employee

defendants committed unjust acts of interference.

b. Damages After April 5, 2013

The defendants contend “the evidence fails to support the jury’s apparent

conclusion the Individual Defendants’ resignations proximately caused CT Freight’s

losses” after the expiration of the two-month injunction on April 5, 2013. The district

court rejected this theory, concluding the evidence showed “that the impact of the

-11-
Defendants’ actions continued after the expiration of the Court’s Preliminary

Injunction,” and that “the damages awarded were the ‘probable, direct, and proximate

consequences of the wrong complained of.’” (Quoting Bedore v. Ranch Oil Co., 805

N.W.2d 68, 87 (Neb. 2011)). 

The defendants find Vigoro Industries, Inc. v. Crisp instructive. See Vigoro

Indus., Inc. v. Crisp, 82 F.3d 785, 789 (8th Cir. 1996) (interpreting Arkansas law). 

Crisp in part considered whether the district court, presiding over a bench trial, had

clearly erred by limiting the plaintiff’s damages for breach of the duty of loyalty “to

the harm caused immediately after [the defendant employee]’s departure by his preresignation soliciting.” Id. In that case, the plaintiff was a longtime manager of a

successful farm supply store. See id. at 787. Several years after Vigoro acquired the

store, Crisp decided to open his own store with Cleveland Chemical. See id. Crisp

informed Vigoro of his resignation and that his fellow employees, some of whom had

critical relationships with customers, would be joining him. See id. at 788. 

Following the resignations, Vigoro’s store began operating at a loss. See id. Vigoro

claimed over $2 million in damages for “lost going concern value,” $3.5 million in

unjust enrichment, and over $4 million in damages for lost profits. Id. at 789. The

district court found the evidence of damages did not support “extravagant lost profit

theories” and awarded $75,000. Id. Our court determined the award was not clearly

erroneous, noting the district court was “left . . . with the difficult task of estimating

what damage in fact flowed from Crisp’s limited breach of duty” of loyalty. Id. Still,

we offered that “we might have been inclined to assign more financial significance

to the fact that Crisp took all of Vigoro’s work force.” Id. 

The defendants emphasize no injunction was involved in Crisp, and yet the

district court, acting as factfinder, still rejected theories of lost profits. First, we

disagree with the defendants’ general premise that the injunction would necessarily

limit the time period for which damages for their tortious conduct could accrue. The

purpose of a preliminary injunction, like the one imposed here, is to mitigate the

-12-
immediate effect of the harm, i.e., preserve the status quo, see Univ. of Texas v.

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981), and while it isrational to take that into account

when determining the extent of the damages, lifting the injunction does not

necessarily mean the plaintiff will no longer suffer damages.

Second, unlike in Crisp, we find there was sufficient evidence to show the

defendants’ conduct proximately caused continuing damages to West Plains. The

defendants were not subjected to restrictive covenants, but their concerted action

nonetheless resulted in tortious interference that caused significant damage to West

Plains. Cf. ABC Trans Nat. Transp., Inc. v. Aeronautics Forwarders, Inc., 413 N.E.2d

1299, 1313 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980) (noting in a case where the employees resigned en

masse to join a competitor, the fact that the defendant employees “might have

accomplished legally what they did illegally does not in any way lessen their

liability”). In 2012, CT Freight profited over $800,000, but in 2013, CT Freight

suffered a net loss of over $150,000. West Plains’ chief executive officer Stephen

Rhodes testified that after the resignations in February 2013, “[b]asically it was like

starting a business from scratch. And so it went very slowly. Revenues dropped

dramatically. [CT Freight] started generating losses.” To preserve what was left of

the business, West Plains immediately began attempting to recruit employees by

reaching out to industry groups and headhunters, but as Rhodes stated, “for the most

part . . . couldn’t find the people for the bulk commodity transportation brokerage

business.” And although West Plains hired replacementsfor the employee defendants

by May 2013, the replacements did not have experience or an established customer

base in the bulk hopper industry. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to show

the defendants’ actions caused a loss of profits to West Plains, and that the loss

continued after the expiration of the temporary injunction. 

2. Breach of Duty of Loyalty

“Under Nebraska law, it is a generally recognized principle that an employee

owes a duty of loyalty to his employer during the course of his

-13-
employment . . . irrespective of the existence of a covenant not to compete or

nonsolicitation clause.” MeccaTech, Inc. v. Kiser, No. 8:05CV570, 2008 WL

1820800, at *5 (D. Neb. Apr. 21, 2008); see also Cudahy Co. v. Am. Labs., Inc., 313

F. Supp. 1339, 1346 (D. Neb. 1970). To give rise to liability, the employee’s disloyal

conduct must be “so harmful as to substantially hinder the employer in the

continuation of his business.” Id. Such conduct might include soliciting customers

of the employer or forming one’s own competing business while still working for the

employer. See Buell, Winter, Mousel & Assocs., Inc. v. Olmsted & PerryConsulting

Eng’rs, Inc., 420 N.W.2d 280, 283 (Neb. 1988). 

The jury found all the employee defendants breached their duty of loyalty. The

defendants insist the unjustified conduct providing the basis for the tortious

interference claim cannot serve as the basis for a duty of loyalty breach claim. Yet

absent any Nebraska legal authority, we fail to see why the same conduct could not

provide the basis for both claims. Cf. Synergetics, Inc. v. Hurst, 477 F.3d 949, 959

(8th Cir. 2007); Kant v. Altayar, 704 N.W.2d 537, 540 (Neb. 2005) (“The same

wrongful conduct may support a civil action based on a theory of battery as well as

an action based upon the independent tort of intentional infliction of emotional

distress.”). 

We conclude there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find the

employee defendants breached their duty ofloyalty. While employed by West Plains,

the defendants intended to hinder CT Freight’s business substantially by offering

insider information to RFG Logistics, and then resigning as a group to ensure the

customers followed. As an affirmation of the duties owed to their employer West

Plains, each of the employee defendants signed an employment agreement promising

to avoid personal conflicts of interests and improper distribution of company

information. Despite that promise, the employee defendants acted in concert to

provide Wells and RFG Logistics important information while they were still

employed by West Plains. Seven of the employee defendants signed confidentiality

-14-
and consulting agreements with Wells in violation of their West Plains’ employment

agreements, and four of those defendants were actually paid for that work while still

working for West Plains.

7

The defendants argue that even if the breach of loyalty claims were upheld, the

forfeiture awards against the employee defendants were excessive. “‘An agent is

entitled to no compensation for conduct which is disobedient or which is a breach of

his duty of loyalty.’” Neece v. Severa, 560 N.W.2d 868, 873 (Neb. Ct. App. 1997)

(quotingRestatement (Second) of Agency § 469 (1958)). The jury wasinstructed that

if it found the employee defendants liable for breach of the duty of loyalty, it could

consider “whether Plaintiff is entitled to recover the compensation it paid to those

Defendants who breached their duty of loyalty during any periods of disloyalty while

employed with Plaintiff.” Here, the jury required supervisors Needham and Danner

and also Rebecca Danner to pay a total of two months’ salary. The jury required

Scholting to pay one-and-a-half months’ salary, and Rhone, Payzant, Waggoner, and

Konecky each to pay lessthan one month’s salary. The defendants contend requiring

the employee defendants “to forfeit several months of compensation, even during

periods of loyal conduct, resulted in a windfall recovery to West Plains.” See Design

Strategies, Inc. v. Davis, 384 F. Supp. 2d 649, 667 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (approving

forfeiture of compensation only during periods of disloyal conduct, broken down by

pay periods). We disagree. Given the extent to which each employee defendant was

involved in the planning of RFG Logistics and the time in which they were so

committed, there was adequate support for each award.

In addition to the conduct discussed in the previoussection, the jury heard that 7

Rhone and Konecky actively assisted RFG Logistics while they were still employed

by West Plains. Rhone emailed herself a spreadsheet she developed at West Plains

and a list of dedicated Omaha trucks. Brokerage assistant Konecky provided

customer load information to Needhamvia instant message on February 5, 2013, after

Needham had resigned and was working at RFG Logistics and while Konecky was

still with CT Freight. 

-15-
3. Civil Conspiracy

“‘A civil conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons to accomplish by

concerted action an unlawful or oppressive object, or a lawful object by unlawful or

oppressivemeans.’” Dixon v. Reconciliation, Inc., 291 N.W.2d 230, 232 (Neb. 1980)

(quoting Peters v. Woodman Accident & Life Co., 104 N.W.2d 490, 496 (Neb.

1960)). Liability for a civil conspiracy is predicated on the existence of an underlying

claim. See Koster, 539 N.W.2d at 278. “[B]y establishing a civil conspiracy, a

plaintiff extends liability for the wrongful acts underlying the conspiracy to those

actors who did not actively engage in the acts, but conspired in their commission.” 

United Gen. Title Ins. Co. v. Malone, 858 N.W.2d 196, 215 (Neb. 2015). The jury

wasinstructed that West Plains wasrequired to prove the defendants committed “one

or more of the following unlawful acts against [West Plains]: . . . unjustified

interference with [West Plains’] business relationships . . . or breach of duty of

loyalty to [West Plains].” Because the instruction did not require the jury to

distinguish between which underlying claims provided the basis for the conspiracy

claim, a finding of liability on either would support the conspiracy claim. West

Plains then was required “to prove the existence of at least an implied agreement to

establish conspiracy.” deNourie & Yost Homes, LLC v. Frost, 854 N.W.2d 298, 316

(Neb. 2014). There was abundant evidence showing the defendants entered into an

agreement tortiously to interfere with West Plains’ business or to breach their duty

of loyalty. 

-16-
B. Motion for a New Trial or Altered or Amended Judgment8

A district court may grant a new trial “for any reason for which a new trial

has . . . been granted in an action at law in federal court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). “A

motion for new trial is addressed to the judicial discretion of the trial judge and will

not be reversed except for a clear abuse of that discretion.” Altrichter v. Shell Oil

Co., 263 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1959). The defendants assert they are entitled to a

new trial because (1) West Plains was improperly allowed to present evidence

relating to “total loss of business value” damages; (2) West Plains’ expert witness was

allowed to give an opinion as to the total loss of CT Freight; (3) the jury was

improperly instructed on damages; (4) the correct measure of damages is the

difference between the value of the businessimmediately before and after the alleged

misconduct; (5) the damages award was excessive and contrary to the evidence; (6)

the defendants’ proposed instruction on the effect of the district court’s temporary

injunction should have been adopted; and (7) West Plains failed to present sufficient

evidence of mitigation of damages. We address each argument in turn.

1. Total Loss of Business Value Damages

Before trial, the defendants filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude

evidence of total loss of value damages, which the district court denied. The district

court noted neither party had provided Nebraska authority on the issue, and then

determined Nebraska law would not require a plaintiff “to show complete destruction

as a [prerequisite] to recovery on a lost value theory.” The defendants argue the

district court erred by permitting the jury to consider evidence oftotal loss of business

value damages—or, in other words, the market value of a business at the time of the

The defendants do not assert any independent grounds for reversal under Fed.

8

R. Civ. P. 59(e). See Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the

Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (explaining motions to alter or

amend a judgment “serve a limited function of correcting ‘manifest errors of law or

fact or to present newly discovered evidence’” (quoting Hagerman v. Yukon Energy

Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988))).

-17-
tortious interference—because CT Freight’s business was not completely destroyed. 

See KMS Restaurant Corp. v. Wendy’s Int’l Inc., 194 F. App’x 591, 601 (11th Cir.

2006) (“‘[I]f a businessis completely destroyed, the proper total measure of damages

is the market value of the business on the date of the loss. If the business is not

completely destroyed, then it may recover lost profits. A business may not recover

both lost profits and the market value of the business.’” (quoting Montage Grp. Ltd.

v. Athle-Tech Comput. Sys., Inc., 889 So. 2d 180, 193 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004))). 

The defendants do agree Nebraska law provides for recovery of lost profits damages

for tortious interference of business relationships. See Triple R Indus., Inc. v.

Century Lubricating Oils, Inc., 912 F.2d 234, 237-38 (8th Cir. 1990) (“Under

Nebraska law, ‘prospective profits from an established business, prevented or

interrupted by the tortious conduct ofthe defendant, are recoverable when it is proved

(1) that it is reasonably certain such profits would have been realized except for the

tort, and (2) that the lost profits can be ascertained and measured, from evidence

introduced, with reasonable certainty.’” (quoting K & R, Inc. v. Crete Storage Corp.,

231 N.W.2d 110, 114 (Neb. 1975))); see also ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin

Hackett & Meeks, Inc., 896 N.W.2d 156, 181, 195-96 (Neb. 2017) (holding the jury’s

award of $43,806,362.70 for future lost profits wassupported by sufficient evidence). 

As long as there is “sufficient evidence” to show “a loss of profits was suffered, it is

proper to let the jury determine what the loss probably wasfrom the best evidence the

nature of the case allows.” Gary’s Implement, Inc. v. Bridgeport Tractor Parts, Inc.,

799 N.W.2d 249, 259 (Neb. 2011). 

2. West Plains’ Expert Testimony

The defendants contend the district court erred by allowing West Plains’

expert, William Kenedy, to offer an opinion on the value of CT Freight at the time of

the resignations. “Only if an expert’s opinion is so fundamentally unsupported that

it can offer no assistance to the jury must such testimony be excluded.” Katzenmeier

v. Blackpowder Prod., Inc., 628 F.3d 948, 952 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hose v.

Chicago Nw. Transp. Co., 70 F.3d 968, 974 (8th Cir.1995)). 

-18-
First, Kenedy conducted an analysis comparing the revenue logged from CT

Freight’s top 20 customers in 2012 and 2013, and compared those figures to RFG

Logistic’s revenue from its top customers in 2013. Kenedy explained: “March of

2013 and April of 2013 is when CT Freight’s revenue from these top 20 customers

effectively, for the most part, disappears. And then suddenly in April of 2013, RFG,

which previously hadn’t had much sales, has sales from these same customers.” 

Kenedy continued, based on the month-by-month financialstatementsfor CT Freight

in 2013, after the employees’ resignation, “that effectively the business of CT Freight

at that point in time was . . . effectively a total loss. The entire company—the value

of the company was gone based on that transaction.” Fromreviewing RFG Logistics’

corresponding “financial statements and . . . monthly sales-by-customer reports,”

Kenedy testified that after February 2013, RFG Logistics “was a profitable business

and it had significant sales that were previously CT Freight’s.” 

Second, Kenedy offered his opinion as to the value of CT Freight in February

2013. According to Kenedy, before February 5, 2013, the value of CT Freight was

$2,131,000, based upon “the value of future profits.” Kenedy also stated between

February and October 13, 2013, CT Freight suffered $330,000 in actual losses as it

tried “to mitigate the damage and rebuild the business.” To formulate his opinion, he

comparedCT Freight’s financialresults and customer mix fromthe years 2011, 2012,

2013, and 2014. Kenedy also considered overhead, expenses, salaries, as well as

discussions with management, revenue by customer, industry trends, and expected

growth rates. Based on his review of that information, he concluded CT Freight was

“unable to make a profit going forward from the date of this incident all the way

through 2014. So . . . that is important to me to say that it was a total loss.” Given

the foundation provided in Kenedy’s analysis, we conclude the district court

committed no error in allowing West Plains to offer Kenedy’s opinions. See, e.g.,

Wash Sols., Inc. v. PDQ Mfg., Inc., 395 F.3d 888, 893 (8th Cir. 2005) (“For

established businesses, expected future profits may be extrapolated with reasonable

-19-
certainty from historical evidence of the income and expenses of the business prior

to the damaging event.”). 

3. Jury Instructions

The defendants contend the district court failed to instruct properly the jury on

the issue of damages. “Appellate review of a district court’s jury instructions ‘is

limited to whether the instructions, viewed on the whole, fairly and adequately

represent the evidence and applicable law in light of the issues presented to the jury

in a particular case.’” Ross v. Garner Printing Co., 285 F.3d 1106, 1111 (8th Cir.

2002) (quoting Omega Healthcare Inv’rs, Inc. v. Lantis Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 774,

776 (8th Cir. 2001)). 

After the parties had concluded making their formal objections in regard to the

jury instructions and verdict form, the district court asked whether “there [was]

anything else we need to talk about before the jury comes in?” The defendants

answered yes, and asked for an instruction to “tell the parties that it cannot refer [in

closing argument] to lost asset of the business.” Overruling the objection, the district

court responded by first noting it had previously addressed the damages issue when

denying the defendants’ motion in limine, and further explained the jury instructions

on damages had been “left fairly open intentionally.” The district court stated: “When

we were in chambers in the informal jury instruction conference, there was no

discussion about this. There were no arguments about the instructions asthey related

to damages. And it will be up to the jury to decide what will fairly and reasonably

compensate [the] plaintiff for its injury if they find liability in this case.” Our review

of this exchange leads us to conclude the defendants did not formally object to the

jury instructions they challenge here and thus failed properly to raise the issue. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(b)(2), (c)(2). Because the defendants failed formally to object, “we

review for plain error only.” Greaser v. State of Mo., Dep’t of Corr., 145 F.3d 979,

984 (8th Cir. 1998). “[W]e may grant plain error relief when instructional error is

plain, affects a party’s substantial rights, and ‘seriously affect[ed] the fairness,

-20-
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Moore v. Am. Family Mut.

Ins. Co., 576 F.3d 781, 786 (8th Cir. 2009) (second alteration in original) (quoting

Cedar Hill Hardware & Const. Supply, Inc. v. Ins. Corp. of Hannover, 563 F.3d 329,

351 (8th Cir. 2009)).

The defendants challenge two instructions. The first, No. 21, stated in relevant

part:

If you return a verdict for [West Plains] on any of its claims, then

you must decide how much money will reasonably and fairly

compensate [West Plains] for its injury. Remember, throughout your

deliberations you must not engage in any speculation, guess, or

conjecture and you must not award any damages by way of punishment

or through sympathy. Although [West Plains] seeks recovery of

damages on four theories, you many assess only one recovery. If you

find for [West Plains] on one or more of the theories, any verdict for 

[West Plains] must be in a single amount and there can be no duplication

of [the] damage.

The second, No. 22, further instructed that if the jury found liability, West Plains

would be “entitled to the reasonable value of the profits [West Plains] has lost and is

reasonably certain to lose in the future as a result of [the] Defendant[s’] unlawful

conduct.” The instruction explained the burden was on West Plains to prove “it is

reasonably certain such profits would have been realized except for the Defendants’

unlawful conduct,” and “the lost profits can be ascertained and measured, from

evidence introduced, with reasonable certainty.” 

The defendants claim these instructions forced jurors to make an “‘all or

nothing decision,’” leading to a windfall recovery for West Plains. We disagree. 

While the instructions, as the district court admitted, are certainly broad, the district

court adequately instructed the jury on Nebraska law, and told the jury it could not

-21-
base its award on speculation. We conclude any error was not so plain as to warrant

a new trial. 

4. Damages Award

The defendants next challenge the jury’s general compensatory damages award

of $1,513,000, arguing the amount is excessive and contrary to the weight of the

evidence. “When presented with a question as to whether a state law claim damage

9

award is excessive, state substantive law guides our review.” Hurst, 477 F.3d at 960. 

Under Nebraska law, “[i]n order for an award to be so excessive as to warrant a new

trial, it must be so clearly against the weight and reasonableness of the evidence and

so disproportionate as to indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice, mistake,

or some means not apparent in the record, or that the jury disregarded the evidence

or rules of law.” Shipler v. Gen. Motors Corp., 710 N.W.2d 807, 840 (Neb. 2006). 

In Hurst, we upheld the jury’s award of $1,759,165 in damages for tortious

interference and breach of loyalty claims. See Hurst, 477 F.3d at 960. We reasoned

it was “obvious that the jury believed and relied upon” the plaintiff’s expert witness,

who calculated the amount of economic damages suffered by the plaintiff based on

the plaintiff’s “lost profits fromsales, price erosion, and out-of-pocket expenses.” Id. 

Here, the jury’s award of $1,513,000 in compensatory damagesis considerably

less than what Kenedy testified was the total value of the business before the

resignations and reflects an amount a reasonable jury could have believed would

fairly compensate West Plains for damages it sustained as a result of the defendants’

tortious conduct. See W. Fireproofing Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 896 F.2d 286, 292

(8th Cir. 1990) (finding “no basis in the record” to disregard the jury’s award of

market value damages caused by tortious interference of defendant (interpreting

The verdict form simply asked, “If you found in favor of [West Plains] on any

9

of the claims . . . what is the total amount of damages, if any, that will reasonably and

fairly compensate [West Plains] for its injury caused by . . . the Defendants’ unlawful

conduct based on the instructions provided in Instruction No. 21?” 

-22-
Missouri law)). In 2012, CT Freight made a total of over $19 million in sales

revenue, averaging between $1.4 and $1.8 million in sales revenue per month, and

realizing an $831,488.27 profit for the year. In comparison, the monthly sales

revenue drastically dropped after February 2013, resulting in only $7.5 million total

annual sales and a $137,364.85 loss for the CT Freight division that year. Based on

the evidence West Plains produced at trial, we are satisfied the jury’s award was not

based on improper reasoning. See Roth v. Wiese, 716 N.W.2d 419, 436 (Neb. 2006)

(“The amount of damages to be awarded is a determination solely for the fact finder,

and its action in this respect will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by

evidence and bears a reasonable relationship to the elements of the damages

proved.”). 

5. Proposed Jury Instruction

We also reject the defendants’ argument that the district court should have

included their proposed jury instruction relating to the effect of the temporary

injunction that was lifted on April 5, 2013. “A party ‘is not entitled to a particularly

worded instruction.’” Retz v. Seaton, 741 F.3d 913, 919 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting

United States v. Meads, 479 F.3d 598, 601 (8th Cir. 2007)). “‘Our review is limited

to a determination of whether the instructions fairly and accurately present the

evidence and law to the jury given the issues in the case.’” Id. (quoting Eden Elec.,

Ltd. v. Amana Co., 370 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2004)). The proposed instruction, No.

35, stated:

From February 12, 2013 until April 5, 2013, Defendants were

enjoined, or prohibited, by this Court from competing for the same

customers and carriers serviced by [West Plains]. After April 5, 2013,

Defendants were allowed to lawfully compete for the same customers

and carriers serviced by [West Plains]. If you are considering awarding

[West Plains] any lost profit damages, Defendants are not liable for any

lost profit damages after April 5, 2013. 

-23-
For the same reasons previously discussed, the district court was not required to limit

further the time period under which the jury could find West Plains sustained harm. 

6. Mitigation Evidence

Finally, the defendants claim West Plains failed to present sufficient evidence

showing it attempted to mitigate its damages after the employee defendants’

resignations. “‘A plaintiff’s failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages bars

recovery, not in toto, but only for the damages which might have been avoided by

reasonable efforts.’” Tedd Bish Farm, Inc. v. Sw. Fencing Servs., LLC, 867 N.W.2d

265, 271 (Neb. 2015) (quoting Borley Storage & Transfer Co. v. Whitted, 710

N.W.2d 71, 80 (Neb. 2006)). West Plains took steps to mitigate damages by

immediately transferring employees fromanother division to CTFreight, despite their

lack of experience in the bulk hopper industry. West Plains contacted its customers

taken by the defendants in an effort to retain their business. The new management

hired at CT Freight expanded the business into other sectors of the freight brokerage

industry, like dry van and refrigerated goods. Considering the competitive,

relationship-based nature of the industry, it was reasonable CT Freight would try to

expand into new sectors, in addition to rebuilding its customer base in the bulk

hopper industry. 

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm in all respects.

______________________________

-24-