Court Opinion

ID: 9919624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 20:01:18.856096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:33.812832
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11996   Document: 52-1    Date Filed: 01/18/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-11996
                         ____________________

       DOUG KILLOUGH,
       TECHNICAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS, INC.,
                             Plaintiﬀs-Counter Defendants-Appellees,
       versus
       PHIL MONKRESS,

                                         Defendant-Counter Claimant,

       ALL POINTS LOGISTICS, LLC,

                              Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11996         Document: 52-1          Date Filed: 01/18/2024       Page: 2 of 4

       2                          Opinion of the Court                        22-11996

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Alabama
                        D.C. Docket No. 5:17-cv-00247-AKK
                             ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and ABUDU,
       Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This case arises out of a dispute concerning alleged oral con-
       tracts. Plaintiffs Doug Killough and his company, Technical Con-
       sulting Solutions, Inc., sued his former employer, All Points Logis-
       tics, LLC, for breach of contract. All Points filed counterclaims for
       breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and loyalty, and viola-
       tions of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and Alabama Trade Secrets
       Act. After a ten-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in Plaintiffs’
       favor on two breach-of-contract claims and awarded significant
       damages. 1
              All Points raises numerous issues on appeal. Specifically, All
       Points argues that the district court should not have denied its mo-
       tion for judgment as a matter of law, renewed motion for judgment
       as a matter of law, motion for a new trial, and motion for remittitur
       of damages as to Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract novation claims. It
       also challenges the district court’s denial of All Points’s motion for

       1 Because we write for the parties, we do not set forth the facts and procedural

       history of this matter in detail, as the parties are familiar with them.
USCA11 Case: 22-11996       Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 01/18/2024      Page: 3 of 4

       22-11996                Opinion of the Court                           3

       judgment as a matter of law and renewed motion for judgment as
       a matter of law as to Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract profit-sharing
       claim. Besides these matters, All Points challenges the district
       court’s grant of summary judgment foreclosing All Points’s coun-
       terclaim for breach of fiduciary duty based on the faithless-servant
       doctrine. Continuing, All Points argues as well that the district
       court should have granted its motion for a new trial on the ground
       that the jury returned an inappropriate compromise verdict. Not
       only that, but All Points challenges several evidentiary rulings,
       statements made during trial, jury instructions, and verdict-form
       rulings. Finally, All Points asserts that the district court should not
       have denied its motion for a permanent injunction and statutory
       fees.
               On appeal, All Points asks us to (1) reverse the district court’s
       grant of summary judgment as to the faithless-servant doctrine and
       denial of judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ breach-of-con-
       tract claims; (2) order a new trial on Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract
       novation claim (or, alternatively, remit associated damages), Plain-
       tiffs’ breach-of-contract profit-sharing claim, and all of All Points’s
       counterclaims; and (3) order the district court to impose a perma-
       nent injunction on Plaintiffs’ use, disclosure, or retention of All
       Points’s trade secrets.
              After careful review of the record and with the benefit of
       oral argument, we find that each of All Points’s proposed grounds
       for reversal or remand lack merit. We agree with the well-rea-
       soned rulings of the district court.
USCA11 Case: 22-11996     Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 01/18/2024    Page: 4 of 4

       4                     Opinion of the Court                 22-11996

             So we affirm the district court’s ruling on each issue.
             AFFIRMED.