American National Property & Casualty Co. v. Camp, 671 F. App'x 569

Camp, a former employee, was found by a jury to have violated a non-compete agreement with American National; district court entered a permanent injunction and later a final judgment against Camp.
On first appeal, a Ninth Circuit panel upheld the portion of the injunction prohibiting use of American National’s proprietary information and trade secrets; portions barring solicitation of former clients were dismissed as moot.
Camp appealed again, challenging (1) enforceability of the non-compete (terms unreasonable; no legitimate business interest) and (2) the district court’s grant of summary judgment on six counterclaims.
The court invoked the law-of-the-case doctrine, concluding the earlier panel necessarily decided the enforceability of the non-compete when it upheld part of the injunction.
Camp, proceeding pro se, failed to brief or argue the district court’s summary-judgment ruling on his counterclaims; the court treated those issues as waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforceability of non-compete	Non-compete is unreasonable and protects no legitimate interest	Agreement is enforceable; protects proprietary information and business interests	Law of the case: prior panel already decided enforceability; claim not reconsidered; agreement enforceable
Whether injunction's provisions were proper	(reiterates challenge to scope/reasonableness)	Prior appellate panel upheld portion prohibiting use of trade secrets; injunction valid	Prior panel’s decision binds this panel by necessary implication
Summary judgment on Camp’s counterclaims	Counterclaims should survive; summary judgment improper	Camp failed to brief or argue on appeal; issues waived	Affirmed summary judgment for American National as Camp waived appellate challenge
Applicability of pro se leniency	Pro se status should relax briefing requirements	Pro se still must follow procedural rules; failure to brief waives issues	Pro se leniency acknowledged but does not excuse failure to raise arguments; waiver applies

Wrigg v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C., 265 P.3d 646 (Mont. 2011) (legitimate business interest required to support restrictive covenant)
O’Neill v. Ferraro, 596 P.2d 197 (Mont. 1979) (reasonableness of non-compete’s terms is required for enforceability)
Disimone v. Browner, 121 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 1997) (law-of-the-case doctrine prevents redeciding issues decided on prior appeal)
Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768 (9th Cir. 1979) (one panel will generally not reconsider questions decided by another panel)
Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. of America, 902 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1990) (law-of-the-case applies to issues decided explicitly or by necessary implication)
Ward v. Ryan, 623 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 2010) (courts construe pro se filings liberally)
Paladin Associates, Inc. v. Montana Power Co., 328 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2003) (failure to raise argument in opening brief waives appellate challenge)
King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1987) (pro se litigants must follow same procedural rules as other litigants)
Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (overruling on other grounds noted; cited for procedural principle)