Court Opinion

ID: 9910612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-16 01:00:46.061117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:30.591310
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30122        Document: 00517004031             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/15/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                December 15, 2023
                                       No. 23-30122
                                     ____________                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   Sabre Industries, Incorporated,

                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

                                            versus

   Module X Solutions, L.L.C.,

                                    Defendant—Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 5:19-CV-934
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Sabre Industries, Incorporated (“Sabre”), sued for various business
   torts and statutory violations. After discovery, the district court granted
   summary judgment to Module X Solutions, L.L.C. (“MXS”), but denied
   MXS’s motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees. Finding no error, we affirm.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30122     Document: 00517004031           Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/15/2023

                                    No. 23-30122

                                         I.
          Sabre provides a variety of products and services to energy and tele-
   communication companies. One division of Sabre focuses on energy storage,
   that is, providing storage facilities to energy companies. MXS was formed in
   2014 when 100 employees left Sabre. Sabre supported that breakaway initi-
   ally and engaged MXS to support Sabre’s projects. In 2019, however, MXS
   decided that it wanted to enter the energy-storage industry in its own name.
   To do that, it needed skilled employees.
          MXS engaged in a hiring push to recruit employees with energy-
   storage experience. One of the employees hired was Joe McLaurin, a former
   Sabre employee. McLaurin proceeded to assist MXS in hiring other Sabre
   employees for MXS’s fledgling energy-storage division. Sabre argues that
   McLaurin’s conduct violated a non-compete agreement that McLaurin had
   signed with Sabre. MXS was aware of that non-compete agreement when it
   hired McLaurin.
          MXS’s hiring push paid off, as it was able to obtain skilled workers and
   bring in energy-storage clients. Sabre, on the other hand, began to suffer
   financial losses and experienced an exodus of employees. Sabre sued and, as
   relevant here, alleged that MXS tortiously interfered with its business rela-
   tionships, engaged in unfair trade practices, and misappropriated its trade
   secrets and confidential information. Sabre voluntarily dismissed the mis-
   appropriation claims with prejudice when it was unable to substantiate them
   in discovery.
          The claims of tortious interference and unfair trade practices reached
   the summary-judgment stage. The district court determined that MXS’s
   conduct was motivated by profit, not malice, so it granted MXS’s motion for
   summary judgment. The district court also denied MXS’s motion for sanc-
   tions and attorney’s fees after determining that Sabre had not brought its

                                         2
Case: 23-30122      Document: 00517004031          Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/15/2023

                                    No. 23-30122

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

                                         II.
          Louisiana courts have long recognized a cause of action for tortious
   interference with a business relationship. See Graham v. St. Charles St. R.R.
   Co., 18 So. 707, 708 (La. 1895). But “Louisiana courts have limited this cause
   of action by imposing a malice element, which requires that the plaintiff show
   the defendant acted with actual malice.” JCD Mktg. Co. v. Bass Hotels &
   Resorts, Inc., 2001-1096, p. 11 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/6/02), 812 So. 2d 834, 841.
   Sabre failed to discover any evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to
   find that MXS acted with actual malice when it hired McLaurin and used him
   to solicit and hire other Sabre employees. Therefore, the district court did
   not err in granting summary judgment to MXS on this claim.
          The Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
   (“LUTPA”) “grants a right of action to any person . . . who suffers an ascer-
   tainable loss as a result of another person’s use of unfair methods of compe-
   tition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or
   commerce.” Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 2009-1633,
   p. 6 (La. 4/23/10), 35 So. 3d 1053, 1057; see La. Stat. Ann. § 51:1405(A).
   But the statute does not prevent companies from “pursu[ing] profit, even at
   the expense of competitors, so long as the means used are not egregious.”
   Cheramie Servs., 2009-1633, p. 11, 35 So. 3d at 1060 (quoting Moore v. Good-
   year Tire & Rubber Co., 364 So. 2d 630, 633 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1978)). Sabre
   failed to produce any evidence of actions taken by MXS that were “immoral,
   unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious.” Id., 2009-
   1633, p. 12, 35 So. 3d at 1059 (cleaned up). Therefore, the district court did
   not err in granting summary judgment to MXS on this claim.
          Finally, the district court did not err in denying MXS’s motion for

                                         3
Case: 23-30122     Document: 00517004031          Page: 4   Date Filed: 12/15/2023

                                   No. 23-30122

   sanctions and attorney’s fees because the evidence does not support MXS’s
   contentions that Sabre brought claims it knew to be false and prosecuted
   claims in bad faith. Even if there were evidence of sanctionable conduct, any
   error in evaluating Sabre’s conduct does not rise to the abuse-of-discretion
   level. See Whitehead v. Food Max, Inc., 332 F.3d 796, 802–03 (5th Cir. 2003)
   (en banc).
          Finding no error, we AFFIRM the summary judgment and denial of
   sanctions and attorney’s fees, essentially for the reasons the district court
   explained in its thorough Memorandum Ruling issued January 31, 2023.

                                        4