Garriott v. NCsoft Corp.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21378
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Garriott, a former NCsoft executive producer, received stock options in connection with NCsoft's 2001 purchase of his company.
- The options had a ten-year exercise period and were a central part of Garriott's compensation.
- NCsoft terminated Garriott in 2008 and publicly announced his departure to Tabula Rasa fans.
- NCsoft later classified his departure as a voluntary resignation, triggering a 90-day exercise deadline.
- Garriott exercised his options in January 2009 after meeting the new deadline, using loans and liquidating assets to fund the exercise.
- Garriott sued NCsoft for breach of contract in 2009; the jury awarded $28 million in damages, district court denied post-trial relief, and the district court later applied Texas law under Korean choice-of-law rules to determine attorney's fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instruction properly stated Korean law on involuntary resignation | Garriott | NCsoft | No abuse; coercion/intimidation not prerequisite under Korean law. |
| Whether damages were proper given post-breach appreciation and speculative evidence | Garriott's damage models valid | Damages speculation unsupported | No reversible error; damages supported by record. |
| Whether attorney's fees were properly governed by Korean or Texas law | Garriott | NCsoft | Either law would yield valid result; district court acted within discretion. |
| Whether district court abused discretion denying new-trial on damages | Garriott | NCsoft | No abuse; evidence supported damages. |
| Whether district court erred in excluding coercion/intimidation from jury instructions | Garriott | NCsoft | No reversible error; standard followed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jowers v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 617 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for jury instructions)
- Julian v. City of Houston, 314 F.3d 721 (5th Cir. 2002) (charge correct if it states law substance; no reversal)
- Miga v. Jensen, 96 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. 2002) (time-of-breach damages may be inadequate when repudiation occurs)
- In re Air Crash Disaster at New Orleans, 795 F.2d 1230 (5th Cir. 1986) (damages need not be mathematically certain but must have real-world basis)
- Quest Med., Inc. v. Apprill, 90 F.3d 1080 (5th Cir. 1996) (post-trial issues must be properly raised to preserve review; plain-error when not)