Court Opinion

ID: 9956408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 00:00:41.998102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:09.932146
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50936          Document: 113-1           Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/01/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                  ____________                                             Fifth Circuit

                                                                                         FILED
                                   No. 22-50936                                       April 1, 2024
                                  ____________                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                         Clerk
Counsel Holdings, Incorporated,

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Evan P. Jowers,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 1:18-CV-444
                  ______________________________

Before King, Ho, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
      Evan Jowers appeals the district court’s determinations that he vio-
lated his employment contract with his former employer, MWK, and misap-
propriated its trade secrets. The district court’s determinations were not
clearly erroneous. We affirm.
      In April 2006, Jowers was hired as a legal recruiter for MWK, which
is now Counsel Holdings. He signed an employment agreement with non-

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50936          Document: 113-1           Page: 2      Date Filed: 04/01/2024

                                      No. 22-50936

compete and non-solicitation covenants. While he was employed, Jowers re-
located to Hong Kong and began recruiting for law firms in Asia. On Decem-
ber 16, 2006, he resigned from MWK. Later that month, he began working
for another attorney recruiting firm in Hong Kong, Legis Ventures.
        MWK sued Jowers for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach
of the restrictive covenants in his employment contract. MWK alleged that,
while Jowers was still employed with MWK, he submitted its candidates for
employment through Legis Ventures. After a bench trial, the district court
found in favor of MWK on both claims. Jowers appeals the district court’s
determinations that MWK proved its misappropriation and breach of con-
tract claims. 1
        “On appeal from a bench trial, we review the district court’s decision
for clear error as to the court’s findings of fact and de novo as to legal issues.”
Poole ex rel. Brian Steven Poole Est. v. City of Shreveport, 79 F.4th 455, 459 (5th
Cir. 2023). This court gives great deference to the factual findings of a bench
trial. Hess Corp. v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 26 F.4th 229, 233 (5th Cir.
2022). If “there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s
choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Anderson v. City of Bes-
semer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985).
        “A trade secret is information which derives independent economic
value from being not generally known or readily ascertainable through proper
means.” CAE Integrated, L.L.C. v. Moov Techs., Inc., 44 F.4th 257, 262 (5th

        _____________________
        1
          Jowers also challenges the denials of his motion to dismiss and his summary
judgment motion. Neither can be appealed after a trial on the merits. See, e.g., Bennett v.
Pippin, 74 F.3d 578, 585 (5th Cir. 1996); Black v. J.I. Case Co., 22 F.3d 568, 572 (5th Cir.
1994).

                                             2
Case: 22-50936        Document: 113-1          Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/01/2024

                                    No. 22-50936

Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Whether information can be classified as a
trade secret is a question of fact. Id.
       The district court concluded that MWK’s customers’ “names, their
clients, how much their practices were worth, their language skills, their goals
for switching firms, and their law school records” constitute trade secrets.
The court said MWK’s customer information was not generally known and
not readily ascertainable because Jowers acquired the information only
because he was employed with MWK.
       Misappropriation involves the disclosure or use of a trade secret
without express or implied consent by a person who breached confidentiality
to divulge the information. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
§ 134A.002(3).       Jowers’s employment agreement explicitly required
confidentiality, and he testified that MWK’s customers requested that he
keep their information secret.            Regardless, Jowers divulged MWK’s
customer information to others, including a competing recruitment firm,
without authorization. We find that the district court’s determination that
Jowers misappropriated confidential client information is permissible in light
of the evidence.
       Jowers likewise challenges the district court’s ruling in favor of MWK
on the breach of contract claim. Jowers argues that MWK lacked “legitimate
business interests.”      Under Florida law, enforcement of a restrictive
covenant is justified by the “existence of one or more legitimate business
interests.”2 Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b). The district court found that
MWK’s client information constituted trade secrets and trade secrets are
considered legitimate business interests. Id. We find no clear error.

       _____________________
       2
         The district court determined that Jowers’s employment agreement is governed
by Florida law.

                                           3
Case: 22-50936       Document: 113-1      Page: 4    Date Filed: 04/01/2024

                                 No. 22-50936

       Regarding Jowers’s argument that we should reverse the breach of
contract determination because MWK had unclean hands, this court will not
address arguments on appeal that weren’t raised in a manner sufficient for
the district court to rule on them. See Webster v. Kijakazi, 19 F.4th 715, 720
(5th Cir. 2021).
       We affirm.

                                      4