Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10505 Su m m ar y Cal endar
A L W AY S A T M A R K E T IN C , P l ai n t i f f –A pp el l ee v. R O N A L D G IR A R D I, D e fe nda nt–Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 3: 06- C V

- 2145
B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * R o n a ldG ir a r d i, pro se , a ppe al s , t he m ag i s t r at e j udg e ’ s o r de rg r ant i ng j udgm enti n favorof A l w ays atM ar ketI nc. (“AA M ” )
. T h e m a gi st r at e j udge f ou n d that G i rardiaccept ed $2 30, 560 i n kic kb ac ksf r o m av e n dor w h i l e em pl oyed atAAM , a n dth a th e u s e dt h e f u n d s t o s e tu p ac o m p e t i t o r , Co n t e m p o Gr o up, United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 18, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10505 Document: 00511029858 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2010N o. 09- 10505

C GI was a co-defendant attrial, and was found jointly and severally liablewith 1 Girardi . C GI did not appeal
. 2 In c. (“C G I”)
. B eca u se th e d i stri ct cou rt did n ot com m i t cl ea r erro r i n i ts l i a b i l i ty 1 or dam ages determ i n ati on , w e af f i rm i n part. W e rem an d f or t h e di st ri ctcourt to d e te r m in e a tt o r n e y ’ s fe e s d u e o n G ir a r d i’ s co u n te r c la im
.

I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND AA M i s a di rect an d s econd ary di st ribu t or of w atc h es a n d oth er m erchan di se, m o stlyth ro u g h in te rn e t a u ctio n site s. AA M p rocu res m erchan di se a t d is c o u n te dp r ic e s fr o m v e n d o r s , a n dth e n e ith e rs e lls the m erc h a n d is e d ir e c tly t o e n d

- u s e r s o v e rt h e i n t e r n e to rt o i n t e r n e ta u c t i o n s i t e s . AAM h i r e dG i r ar di b e g in n in gJ a n u a r y1 , 2 0 0 3 t o d e v e lo p AA M ’s w a t c h b u s in e s s , b e c a u s e G ir a r d i’s exp eri en ce i n t h e w atc h i n du st ry le fthi m w i t h val u able i n roads w i t h w atc h suppl i er s i n E as tA si a. AA M pai d G i r ar di$84, 000 i n sal ar y. I n s u m m e r2 0 0 4 Gi r a r d if o r m e dCGI wi t h h i s b us i ne s s p a r t n e rEd G ol db erg. G ol db erg w as at n o t i m e em pl oyed by AA M , bu tG i rardiof t en w orked wi t h Go l d b e r gt o p r o c u r e wa t c h e s f o rAAM b e f

o r e t h e yf

o r me dC GI
. C GI
e n g a g e din th e s a m e w a tc h b u s in e s s a s AA M a n dco m p e te dd ir e c tlyo rin d ir e c tly
w i t h AA M by d i st r ibut i ng w at c hes s uppl i ed bys om e o f t he s am e v endor s t hat G ir a r d i h a db r o u g h t t o AA M
. O n e sup pl i er, A sad M assoud , sol d w atc h es t o G i rardian d G old berg f or bo t h AA M a nd CG I
. M as s o ud, i n aw r i t t e n de po s i t i o n r e s po ns e , t e s t i f i e d t hathe p a i d“k i c k b a c k s ” o f

b e t we e n $ 2 t o $10 pe ru n i to n wa t c h e s h e s o l dt o AAM t hro ugh G ol dber g and G i r ar di
. M as so ud t es t i f i ed t hatG ol dber g t ol d hi m t hat t h e kic kb acks w ere f or G i rardi
. Joh n H ou se, AA M ’ s presi den t a n d fou n der, t e s t i f i e dt h a tG i r a r d ib o u g h tb e t w e e n 7 0 , 0 0 0 a n d8 0 ,0 0 0 w a t c h e s fr o m M a s s o u d ’s
c o m p a n ie s o n b e h a lf o f AA M
. On A p r i l1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , H o u s e t e r mi n a t e dGir a r d ie f fe c t iv e A p r i l2 , 2 0 0 5
. O n A u gu st10, 200 5, M assoud sent AA M a n i n voi ce det ai l i n g t h e am ou n tAA M ow ed Case: 09-10505 Document: 00511029858 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2010N o. 09- 10505

The magistrate j udge never rule d onGirardi’s hearsayobjection
. 2 3 on 11 , 3 2 0 w a tch es. G i ra rd ih a d n eg oti a ted th e pu rch a se of th ose w a tch es w i th M a sso u d b efore H ou se f i red h i m . U p on cl ose r ex a m i n a ti on of t h e sp rea d sh ee t, AA M no t i c e d hi dde n c o l um ns l i s t i ng a “ C: pe r pr i c e ” o f $1 0 f o re ac h wat c h. The hi dde n col u m ns s ho w e d t he pr i c e o f t he w at c h unit s b o t h b e f o r e a nd a f

t e rt he $ 1 0 h a db e e n a d d e d
. AA M suedG i rardian d C G I i n st ate c ou rtf or breach of

contr act , breach of f i duc i ar y dut y, m i s ap pr o pr i at i o n o f t r ad e s e cret s , unfairc o m pe t i t i o n, a nd torti ou s i n terferen ce w i th co n tra ctu a lrelati on s. G i ra rd irem ov ed the cas e to federalcourtan d coun t e rc lai m ed f or un pa i d w ages f

or hi s l ast t w o w eeks of
em pl oym en t
. T h e p art i es con sented t o a ben ch tr i albef ore t h e m agis t rat e j u dg e. Att r i al , AA M c all e d H o us e t o t e s t i f y r e ga r di ng hi s r e l at i o ns hi p wi t h Gi r ar dia nd G i rardi ’ s em pl oym en t
. G ira rd i ’ s c ou n selobj ect ed on hea rsay groun ds w h en AA M ’ s c ounse lasked w hatG ol dber g t ol d H ous e. C ounse lforAA M argued that h e w o u ld e s t a b li s h ac o n s p ir a c yb e t w e e n G ir a r d i a n dG o lb e r g , s o th a tG o ld b e r g ’s
s t at e m en t s wer e no the ar s ay . The m ag i s t r at e j udg e t o l d t he pa r t i e s t hats he
w o ul d c ar r y t he o bj e c t i o n w i t h t he m e r i t s . AA M al s o i nt r o duc e d Exhibit1 7, t he 2 i n vo i ce se n t from M a sso u d , an dE xh ib i t 22 , M a sso u d ’ s w ri tten de p ositi on , i n to e vi de nc e w i t ho uto bj e c t i o n. T h e parti es t h en subm i t t ed p roposed f i n di n gs of

fact a n d c o n cl u si on s of l aw . G i r ar diar gued i n hi s subm i ss i on thatt he o nl y e vi denc e s how i ng t hat G i r ar dir e c e ive d k i c kb acks w as he ar s ay . The m ag i s t r at e j udg e f o und G i r ar di l i able f or breach of

contr act , breach of

f i du ci ary du t y, a n d tor t i ou s i n t erf erence w i t h contr actf

or t ak i n g kic kb ack s f rom M assoud
. Th e m agis t rat e j u dg e al so f o und t hatG i r ar die nga ge d i n unl awf ulco m pe t i t i o n a nd m i s ap pr o pr i at e d t r ad e s e c r e ts , b u t t h a t AA M d idn o t p r o v e d a m a g e s o n th o s e co u n ts
. Case: 09-10505 Document: 00511029858 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/18/2010N o. 09- 10505

4 The m ag i s t r at e j udg e f o und t hatAA M pr o ve d $ 23 0, 560 in d am ag e s f r o m t he ki c kbac k s c hem e. The m agi st r at e j udge al sof ound t hatAA M o w ed $4, 851. 78 l ess an y ap pl i cabl e w i t h h ol di n g f or un pa i d w ages resul t i n g f rom G i rardi ’ s w ork per f or m ed b etw ee n A pril2, 2005 and A pril15, 2005. The m agi st r at e j udge ordered G i rardit o payreasonab l e an d n ecess ary att orney’ s f ees f or m i sapp ropri ati on of

t rade secre ts. AA M subm i t t ed an un opp osed m ot i on f or $40 , 000 i n att orney’ s f ees and cos t s af

t er t h e m agis t rat e j u dg e i ssuedher de c i s i o n. Gi r ar dit i m e l y ap pe al e d. I I . DI S CU S S I ON W e r e vi ew a j udg m e nte nt e r e d b y a m ag i s t r at e w i t h t he c o ns e nto f t he pa r t i e s b y t he s am e s t and ar d o f r e vi e w t hatw e w o ul d a pply t o ade c i s i o n o f t he d is tr ic t c o u r t. T

aylor v . D o m est i c R em od el i ng, I n c. , 97 F
. 3d96, 98 ( 5th C i r. 1996) (c i t i ng L ocket t e v. G reyhou n dL i n es, I n c. , 817 F
. 2d118 2 , 1 185 ( 5th C i r. 1987) )
. “ I n an appealf r om a benc h t r i al , w e r evi ew t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ngs o f fa c tf o rc l e a re r r o ra n dq u e s t i o n s o f l a w de no vo . ” SE C v. G ann , 565 F. 3d 932, 9 3 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (c ita tio n s o m itt e d). In ab e n c h tr ia l, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly
e rr s if: ( 1 ) t h e f i n d i n g s a r e w i t h o u ts u b s t a n t i a le v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r tt h e m, ( 2) t he c our tm i sa ppre hended t he e f fec tof t he e vi denc e, a n d ( 3) a lth o u g h th e r e is e v id e n c e w h ic h if cr e d ib le w o u ldb e s u b s ta n tia l, th e fo rce an d ef

fectof t h e t est i m on y, consi dered a s a w h ol e, c o nvi n ces t he c o ur tt hatt he f i ndi ngs a r e s o a ga i ns tt he prepon deran ce of

cr ed ib le t est i m on y t h at th ey do n otref l ector r e p r e s e n t t h e tr u th a n drig h t o f th e ca s e . I d. A . H ear s ay

“ G en eral l y w e revi ew a di st ri ct court’ s evi den t i ary rul i n gs f or an abu se of d i scre ti on . ” Ande rs o n v . Si e m e ns Cor p. , 335 F
. 3d4 46 , 4 71 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 3) (c i t i ng V an cev . Uni o n Plant e rs Cor p. , 2 0 9 F. 3 d 4 3 8 , 4 4 1 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) )
. I f t he Case: 09-10505 Document: 00511029858 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/18/2010N o. 09- 10505

Girardi obj ected to some statements byH ouse as hearsayduring direct examination. 3 Those statements, however , are not relevantonapp eal
. 5 ap pel l an tfai l ed to m ak e a specif i c obj ect i on , w e revi ew f or pl ai n err or. I

d.
. To f i n d pl ai n error ( 1) t h ere m u stbe err or and i tm u stbe pl ai n ; ( 2) t h e err or m u st af fecta substan t i alri gh t ; an d ( 3) t h e err or m u stser i ou sly af fectt h e fai rness, in te g r ityo rp u b licr e p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . Un ited S ta tes v. S a n d lin , 589 F
. 3d7 49, 757 –58 ( 5th C i r. 200 9) (ci t ati on s om i t t ed). I f w e f i n d these t h ree e le m e n ts , w e h a v e d is c r e tio n to fin dp la in e r r o r . I d. at758. F ederalR u l e of

E vi den ce 801(c) def i n es h e a rs a y as “ a st atem en t , ot h er t h an one m ad e by the decl aran tw h i l e t est i f yi n g at th e t ri alor h eari n g, of fered i n evi den ce t o prove t h e t ru th o f th e m att er ass ert ed. ” Ast atem en ti s not h earsay i f

i ti s m ad e “by a co- conspir atordu ri n g t h e course and i n f u rt h eran ce of t h e con sp i ra cy . ” F ED . R. E VID . 801 ( d)( 2) ( E )
. Th e party s eeking i n t rodu ct i on of t h e co- conspir ator ’ s s t atem en tm u st prove bya prepon deran ce of t h e evi den ce:

“ (1 ) th e e x i st en ce of t h e conspi racy; ( 2) t h e st atem en tw as m ad e by a coc o n s p i r a t o r o f t h e p a r t y ; ( 3 ) t h e s t a t e m e n t wa s m a d e d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t he
c o n s p ir a c y ; a n d(4 ) th e s ta te m e n t w a s m a d e in fu r th e r a n c e o f th e co n s p ir a c y .” Un ited S ta tes v. Ha ll , 500 F. 3d 439, 443 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) (c i t i ng Uni t e d S t at e s v. Co rn ett , 1 9 5 F .3d 7 7 6 , 7 8 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 )). G i r a r d i a r g u e s th a tth e m a g is t r a t e ju d g e e r r e db ya d m it t in gM a s s o u d ’s te s tim o n ya s t o w h a t G o ld b e r gt o ldh im
. H o w e v e r , t h e r e c o r ds h o w s t h a t h e d id
n o t ob j ect to a d m i ssion of a n y of M a sso u d ’ s testi m on y u n til h e sub m i tte d h is A n n o ta te dP r o p o s e dF i n d i n g s o f F a c t a n dC o n c lu s io n s o f L a w a fte rtr ia l. 3 Fed e r alRul e o f

Evi de nc e 1 03 ( a) r e quir e s G i r ar dit o o bj e c tupo n a dm i s s i o n o f t he
e v id e n c e . Un i t ed S t ate s v. G on zales , 436 F
. 3d 560, 576 n. 11 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) (c i t i ng Uni t e dS t ate s v. D uf f aut , 314 F
. 3d203 , 209 ( 5th C i r. 200 2) )
. B ecau se G i rardidi d n otobj ectt o adm i ssi on of M assoud ’ s w ri t t en dep osi t i on or t h e i n voi ce M assoud sent, w e revi ew f or pl ai n err or. Case: 09-10505 Document: 00511029858 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/18/2010N o. 09- 10505

6 T h e m agis t rat e j u dg e n ever exp l i ci t l y rul ed t h at she w o u ld con si der M a sso u d ’ s testi m on y a s to G oldb erg ’ s statem en ts b eca u se th eyw ere statem en ts o f ac o - c o n s p i r a t o r , b u ts h e n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n s i d e r e dt h e e v i d e n c e . T h e r e f o r e , we assum e she ad m i t t ed the evi den ce as a st atem en tof a co- conspir ator , an d w e ask
w het herthe m agi st r at e j udge co m m i t t ed pl ai n er r or . Th e evi denc e s how ed t hat C G I w as a j oi n tven t u re betw een G ol db erg an d G i rardi , w h i ch dir ect l y com peted
w i th AA M . T h eref ore, t h ere w as som e evi den ce of a conspi racy bet w een G o l db e r g andG i r ar dit o m i s ap pr o pr i at e t r ad e se c r e t s . Gol db e r g’ s i ns t r uc t i o ns t o M assoud t o pa y extr a kic kb ack c om m i ssi on f or G i rardi coul d h ave f u rt h ered th e con spi r ac y. W e c annots ay t hatt he m agi st r at e j udge pl ai nl y e r r ed by
c ons i der i ng M as so ud’ s t es t i m ony. B . Su f

f i ci en cy of

E vi de n ce “T h e e le m e n ts o f ab r e a c h o f c o n tr a c t c la im a r e (1 ) th e e x is te n c e o f av a lid contract , ( 2) t h e perf

orm an ce ort en dered p erf orm an ce by t h e pl ai n t i f f, ( 3) b r each of t h e contr actby the defenda n t , an d ( 4) da m ages t o t h e pl ai n t i f f res u l t i n g f

rom th a t brea ch
. ” Harri s v. A m . Prot . I n s. Co. , 1 5 8 S. W
. 3 d 6 1 4 , 6 2 2

– 2 3 (Tex. A pp . — F ortW ort h 200 5, n o pet. ) (ci t ati on s om i t t ed). T o f i n d breach of

a f i du ci ary dut y, “ ( 1) af

i duc i ar y r e l at i o ns hi p m us te xi s tb e t w e e n t h e p l ai n t i f f a nd the de fe n d a n t , ( 2 ) t h e d e fe n d a n t m u s t h a v e b r e a c h e d it s f i d u c i a r y d u t y t o t he pl ai n t i f f, an d ( 3) t h e defen da n t ’ s breach m u stresu l tin inj u ry to the plai n t i f f or b en efi t to th e d efen d a n t. ” Es tyv . Be a lBa n k S
. S. B. , 298 S. W
. 3d 280, 304 (Tex. A p p .— D a lla s 2 0 0 9 , n o p e t.) (c ita tio n s o m itt e d). G i ra rd iarg u es th a t AA M i n trod u cedinsuf f ic i en t evide n ce to sh ow l i a b i l i ty o rda m ag e s . W e di s ag r e e . Reg ar di ng l i ab i l i t y, t he r e i s no di s put e t hatG i r ar di
o w e dfid u c ia r yd u tie s to AA M a s its s a le s re p r e s e n ta tiv e , s e eMolex, I nc. v. Nolen , 759 F .2d 4 7 4 , 4 79 (5t h C i r. 198 5) ( ap pl yi n g T exas l aw t o f i n d a sal es representat ive ow ed f i du ci ary du t i es t o h i s em pl oyer) , an d t h at h e h ada contr act to d ev elop AA M ’ s w a tch bu sine ss. N or d o th eydisp u te tha t AA M f u l fil l edi ts Case: 09-10505 Document: 00511029858 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/18/2010N o. 09- 10505

7 o bli ga t i o ns und e rthe c o nt r ac tunt i lt he l as tt w o w e e ks o f G i r ar di ’ s e m pl o y. The evi denc e f

or t he br eac h of c ont r ac t i s t he s am e a s t he br eac h of f i duci ar y dut y: G ir a r d i a c c e p te ds e c r e t p a y m e n ts fr o m M a s s o u din v io la tio n o f b o th h is contract u alan d f

i du ci ary du t i es to AA M
. Th i s breach cau sed AA M dam ages becau se, as t h e i n voi ce s en tf rom M assoud sh ow s, AA M p ai d f or every k i ckba ck ad ded i n . M assoud ’ s deposi t i on described t h i s schem e, an d as exp l ai n ed ab ove, G i r ar didi d notobj ec tt o it s adm i ss i on. W e c annots ay t hatt he m agi st r at e j udge cl ea rl y e rred byf

i n d i n g b rea ch of fi d u ci a rydu ty a n dbre a ch of con tract. W i t h re spe c tt o dam ages , t he m agi st r at e j udge f ound t hatG i r ar dit oo k at l east $23 0, 560 i n kic kb acks. T h e m agis t rat e j u dg e ap pl i ed $10 ea ch for ev ery w at c h s ho w n i n Exhibit1 7 f o r a t o t al o f $1 1, 32 0; and $2 e ac h f o r t he r e m ai ni ng 58 , 68 0 w at c he s , w hi c h r e pr e s e ntt he b o t t o m o f t he ran ge M as s o ud d e s c r ibe d. W e fi n dt h a tt h e ma g i s t r a t e j u d g e d i dn o tc l e a r l ye r rb yf i n d i n gt h a tAAM
s u ffe r e da t le a s t $ 2 3 0 ,5 6 0 in d a m a g e s . C . AA M ’ s A tto rn e y ’ s F e e s a n d C o sts

“ U n d er T exas l aw , t r ade s ec r etm i sa ppro pri at i on i s es t abl i she d by sho w i ng: ‘ ( a) a t r ade s ec r etex i st ed; (b) t he t r ade s ec r etw as ac qui r ed t hro ugh
a breach of a confi den t i alrel ati on shi p or di scovered by i m proper m ean s; an d (c)
u se of th e trad e secr et w i th ou t a u th oriza ti on from th e p l a i n tiff
. ’” Alc a t e lUSA , Inc. v. D G I T

ech. , I n c. , 166 F
. 3 d 7 7 2 , 784 ( 5t h C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng Ph i l l i ps v. Frey , 2 0 F .3 d6 2 3 , 6 2 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 )). “ E a c h p e r s o n w h o p r e v a ils in as u it
u n der t h i s cha pter sha l lbe aw arded courtcos t s and reasonab l e an d n ecess ary a ttorn ey ’ s fee s. ” T EX . C IV . P RA C . & R EM . § 1 3 4 .0 0 5 (b ). G i rardia r gue s thatthem agi s t r ate j u dg e err ed byaw ardi n g att orney’ s f ees and c o s t s unde rt hi s pr o vi s i o n b e c aus e AA M pr o duc e d noe vi de nc e t hatG i r ar di
m i s ap pr o pr i at e d t r ad e s e c ret s , a nd the r e f o r e t he m ag i s t r at e j udg e l ac ke d a st at ut or y bas i s f

oraw ar di ng at t or ney’ s fee s. The m agi st r at e j udge f ound t hat G i r ar dihad m i sa ppro pri at ed t r ade s ec r et s, and al sof ound t hatTexas l aw Case: 09-10505 Document: 00511029858 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/18/2010N o. 09- 10505

8 di r e c t e d he rt o aw ard at t o r ne y’ s fe e s a nd c o s t s f o rm i s ap pr o pr i at i o n o f t r ad e s e c r e t s , e ve n t ho ughAA M h ad pr o ve n no da m ag e s r e s ul t i ng f r o m t he
m is a p p r o p r ia tio n . AA M pr o duc e d s uf

f i c i e nt e vi de nc e t hat G i r ar di m i s ap pr o pr i at e d t he t r ad e se c r etof

t he pr oc es s of

s el l i ng w at c hes on and to i nt er netauc t i on s i t es , t hat G i r ar dib r e ac he d hi s c o nf i de nt i alr e l at i o ns hi p wi t h AA M b y ac quir i ng t he t r ad e secr etf or hi s ow n gai n , an d that he u se d the t rade secretf or hi s ow n bu si n ess w i t houtaut hor i zat i on from AA M
. The m agi st r at e j udge di d notc l ear l y e r rby
c r edi t i ng t he t es t i m ony AA M put f or w ar d and di sc r edi t i ng G i r ar di ’ s t es t i m ony. W e af f i rm t h e gran tof

att orney’ s f

ees and cos t s because the pl ain tiff n e e d n ot p r o v e d a m a g e s to b e e n tit le dto a tt o r n e y ’ s fe e s u n d e rs e c tio n 1 3 4 .0 0 5 (b ). S ee Joh n s v. R am - F

orw ard i ng, I

n c. , 29 S
. W
. 3d6 35 , 6 37–3 8 (Tex
. App.

— H o us t on [ 1st D i s t
. ] 2 00 0, no pe t
. ) (upho l di ng awar d o f at t o r ne y’ s fe e s w he r e j ur y awar de d no da m ages)
. Fu rt h erm ore, AA M w as al so entit l ed to att orney’ s f ees based on G ir a r d i’ s b r e a c h o f c o n tr a c t w h ic h d idr e s u lt in ad a m a g e a w a r d
. S ee Matt er of S m ith , 966 F. 2d 973, 978 ( 5t h C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) (fi ndi ng t hatunder Texas l aw t hat
a tto rn e y ’ s fe e s a re m a n d a to ryon cla im s fo r b re a ch of co n tra ct). D . G ira rd i’ s A tto rn e y ’ s F e e s a n d C o sts

“ T o r e c o ve ra t t o r ne y’ s f e e s und e r[T exas C ivi lP ract i ce and R em edi es C ode] S e c t io n 3 8 .0 0 1 , ap a r t ym u s t(1 ) p r e v a ilo n a c a u s e o f a c t io n fo rw h ic h a t t o r n e y ’s fee s a r e rec ov era b l e, a n d( 2 ) reco ve r d a m a ge s. ” G re en In t’l, In c. v. So lis , 951 S. W
. 2d3 84 , 3 90 (Tex
. 1 99 7)
. “The awar d o f r e as o nab l e a t t o r ne y’ s fe e s t o a pl ai n t i f f rec overi n g on a val i d cl ai m f o u n d e d on a w ri t t en or oralcontr act p rece d ed byp r o p e rp rese n tm en t of the cl a i m i s m a n d a tory
. ” I d. a t9 78 (c i t i ng Caldw el l& H u rstv. M yers , 7 1 4 S .W .2 d6 3 , 6 5 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D is t.] 198 6, w ri tref

’ d n .r. e .) . A p art y n eed on l y preva i lon a si n gl e cl ai m t o rec over u n d er S ection 38
. 0 0 1 , an dn ee dn ot ob taina n et re c o v e r y . B re n t v. Field , 275 Case: 09-10505 Document: 00511029858 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/18/2010N o. 09- 10505

9 S. W
. 3d 611, 622 (Tex. A pp. — A m ar i l l o 2008, n o pe t
. ) (c i t i ng McKi n ley v. D rozd , 6 8 4 S .W .2d 7 , 1 0

– 1 1 (T e x . 1 9 8 5 )). G i r ar di c ont ends t hat t he m agi st r at e j udge er r ed by denyi n g h i m l eg al costs ba sed on cou n terclaim f or b rea ch of con tract. B ecau se T exas l aw m an da t es awar di ng at t o r ne y’ s fe e s , a nd becau se t he m ag i s t r at e j udg e a w ar de d Gi r ar di $4 , 85 1. 78 i n da m ag e s , w e f i nd t hat t he m ag i s t r at e j udg e e r r e d b y no ta w ar di ng G i ra rd ian y a ttorn ey ’ s fee s. W e th u s rev erse a n d r e m a n dto t h e m a gistrate j udge f or det er m i nat i on of r eas onabl e at t or ney’ s fee s and c os t s w i t h r es pect to G i r a r d i ’ s c o u n t e r c l a i m. E . M oti on t o S u pp l em en tt h e R ecord “A s a g en era lru l e, th i s cou rt w i l ln ot en l a rg e th e r e c o r d on ap p ea lw i th
ev i d en ce n ot be fore th e d i stri ct cou rt. ” McI nt os h v. Part r i dge , 540 F. 3d 315, 327 (5th C i r. 20 0 8 ) (i n tern a lqu ota tio n s an dci tati on om i tted). G i ra rd im ov es to sup pl em en tt h e rec ord w i t h m ater i al s he cl ai m s s h ow AA M ha s experi en ced gr ow th si n ce ith i red h i m , an da tra n script of a con ve rsa ti on h e h a dw i th M assoud
. G i rardicl ai m s t h at th e evi den ce w ou l d reveala m assive conspir acy byAA M
. Gi r ar diha s no tpr o vi de d s uf f i c i e ntj us t i f

i c at i o n t o de pa r tf

r o m t he ge n era lru l e, so w e d en y G i ra rd i ’ s m oti on to su p p l em en t. I I I . C ONC L US I ON F or t h e reasons st ated abov e, w e A F F IR M the m agis t rat e j u dg e’ s order on AA M ’ s c l ai m s ag ains tG ir ar di , bu tR E V E R S E an d R E M A N D f or a det erm i n ati on of rea so nabl e at t or ney’ s fee s due G i r ar di
. W e al so D E N Y G i r ar di ’ s m ot i on to
s upp l e m e ntt he r e c o r d. AF F I RMED i n p a r t , R EV ER S ED i n p a r t , a n dR EMANDE D. Case: 09-10505 Document: 00511029858 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/18/2010