Opinion ID: 2812203
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Outside Customers

Text: The district court found Massey also downloaded outside-customer files, but the district court did not “[s]pecifically” find defendants converted the outsidecustomer files and did not award any remedy for these alleged losses. Stonebridge claims this was error. Although a close question, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in not awarding judgment to Stonebridge on the outside-customer conversion claim. See Spirtas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670-71 (8th Cir. 2013) (“This court can affirm on any basis supported in the record.”). “‘Conversion is the exercise of dominion over property in violation of the rights of the owner or person entitled to possession.’” Grayson v. Bank of Little Rock, 971 S.W.2d 788, 792 (Ark. 1998) (quoting City Nat’l Bank of Fort Smith v. Goodwin, 783 S.W.2d 335, 337 (Ark. 1990)). The dispositive inquiry is whether defendants, like Stonebridge, were “entitled to possess” the outside-customer files. See id. The outside customers placed orders with Cutting-Edge, paid Cutting-Edge, received knives shipped by Cutting-Edge, and, the district court found, “had no knowledge of who performed the engraving work.”5 The district court further found “[t]he art, proof pages and other items produced in connection [with Stonebridge’s] ‘outside’ customers . . . were shared and disclosed with distributors (including Cutting Edge) and end use customers.” Stonebridge sent Cutting-Edge outside-customer art (“free mock-ups”) with no restriction. Because Stonebridge freely gave Cutting-Edge the 5 Stonebridge stated at oral argument it was “not challenging the district court’s factual findings.” -9- outside-customer art, at least in PDF format,6 defendants’ use of the outside-customer files was not “inconsistent with [Stonebridge’s] rights.” Hatchell, 211 S.W.3d at 521. The outside-customer art was accessible by Cutting-Edge without restriction, and while Stonebridge complains the Carmichaels “developed” an outside-customer list to “servic[e] Stonebridge’s repeat customers,” the outside-customer list was merely a list of Cutting-Edge’s own customers. Given the absence of an agreement that the defendants could not use the proofs, we affirm the district court on Stonebridge’s outside-customer conversion claim.7