Baxter & Associates, L.L.C. D/B/A Baxter Elevators v. D & D Elevators, Inc., David Shaw, Individually, and Donald Moncier, Individually, 05-16-00330-CV

Background

Baxter Elevators sued former employees David Shaw and Donald Moncier and their new company D&D Elevators alleging misappropriation of trade secrets (customer/prospect lists), breach of fiduciary duty, and seeking a temporary injunction under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA).
Shaw was Baxter’s office manager with access to proposals and maintenance contracts; Moncier was a mechanic. Both left in late 2015 and formed D&D while still employed. Baxter alleged four jobs were lost totaling about $50,000.
Baxter claimed confidential customer/prospect data was kept on an offsite server behind two passwords and that Shaw used that information to solicit work for D&D. Shaw and Moncier testified they developed business by pulling permits, driving neighborhoods, canvassing, and advertising; Shaw denied retaining or using a customer list.
The trial court denied Baxter’s temporary injunction, initially noting it found breach of fiduciary duty and that damages for the existing jobs were quantifiable; the court later clarified it did not find trade secrets and denied the injunction because an adequate remedy at law existed and pecuniary loss could be calculated.
Baxter appealed, arguing the trial court erred by denying injunctive relief under TUTSA (no showing of irreparable harm required for statutory injunctive relief). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and implied findings and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying a TUTSA temporary injunction because an adequate legal remedy existed	Baxter: TUTSA authorizes injunctive relief without requiring irreparable-harm proof; trial court’s reliance on adequacy of legal remedy was error	Appellees: Evidence supports denial; absence of trade secrets and adequate legal remedy justify denial	Held: Affirmed. No abuse of discretion — court impliedly found no trade secret and adequate remedy at law existed
Whether the information qualified as a "trade secret" under TUTSA §134A.002(6)	Baxter: customer/builder lists and prospect data were secret, not readily ascertainable, and subject to reasonable secrecy efforts	Appellees: Information was ascertainable by proper means (permits, canvassing); plaintiffs did not take reasonable secrecy measures	Held: Evidence supports implied finding that information was not a trade secret (readily ascertainable; secrecy efforts insufficient)
Whether common-law rule (liability when fiduciary uses employer’s information) survives after TUTSA	Baxter: Even if publicly ascertainable, misuse by fiduciary can establish liability under pre-TUTSA common law (Miller Paper)	Appellees: TUTSA displaced conflicting common-law rules; statutory definition controls	Held: TUTSA displaced conflicting common-law rule; statutory definition governs trade-secret status
Whether trial court’s informal email findings bind appellate review	Baxter: Trial court’s email said trade secrets existed for three jobs; that supports injunctive relief	Appellees: Trial court did not issue formal findings; appellate review should presume no trade-secret finding	Held: Email did not constitute formal findings; no timely requested written findings were made, so court implies findings and reviews sufficiency — supports affirmance

Key Cases Cited

Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing temporary injunctions and appellate deference)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency review standards)
Miller Paper Co. v. Roberts Paper Co., 901 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1995) (pre-TUTSA fiduciary/misuse rule cited by plaintiff)
Fleischer v. Coffey, 270 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (legal-sufficiency/no-scintilla standard)
Sunl Grp., Inc. v. Zhejiang Yongkang Top Import & Export Co., 394 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (factual-sufficiency review and credibility limits)
Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280 (Tex. 1989) (implied findings when formal findings not entered)
Point Lookout West, Inc. v. Whorton, 742 S.W.2d 277 (Tex. 1987) (affirmance on any legal theory supported by the evidence)
Cold Spring Granite Co. v. Karrasch, 96 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (conflicting evidence and injunction review)
Wyly v. Preservation Dallas, 165 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (burden on applicant for temporary injunction)
Burns v. Burns, 116 S.W.3d 916 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (procedural waiver for failure to request past-due findings)
In re W.C.B., 337 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (preservation rules for findings and conclusions)