Gregory S. Strange v. HRSMART, Inc
400 S.W.3d 125
Tex. App.2013Background
- Strange signed a confidentiality and one-year non-compete with HRsmart and left the company on October 11, 2009.
- Strange and former HRsmart employee Morgan formed FireWave Technology and developed ClearVision, a competing performance management tool.
- HRsmart sued Strange for breach of the non-compete; HRsmart obtained a TRO and then a temporary injunction.
- HRsmart and Morgan were later parties to the suit; Strange terminated his involvement with Morgan and relinquished rights to ClearVision and FireWave.
- The trial court granted HRsmart’s summary judgment on liability; HRsmart later sought and obtained an attorney’s-fees judgment, while the case proceeded on other issues.
- This interlocutory posture culminated in an appeal challenging whether ClearVision and HRsmart’s products were sufficiently competitive to warrant summary judgment; the court remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity and breach of the non-compete | HRsmart asserts a valid non-compete existed and was breached by Strange and Morgan. | Strange contends the agreements are invalid or not breached by the ClearVision development. | Genuine issues of material fact remain; liability not established. |
| Performance under the consideration provision | HRsmart performed its consideration obligations under the non-compete. | Strange challenges HRsmart’s performance or tender of consideration. | Not decided as a standalone dispositive issue on remand. |
| Whether ClearVision competitively duplicates HRsmart’s product | ClearVision is substantially similar and competes with HRsmart’s EPM product. | ClearVision targets a niche market and is distinct in capabilities and scope. | Genuine issues of material fact exist; summary judgment reversed on liability; remanded. |
| Counterclaims were timely and properly struck | Strange contends the counterclaims were proper and timely; HRsmart’s motion to strike was improper. | HRsmart argues counterclaims were untimely and prejudicial, justifying strike. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; counterclaims struck. |
| Ex parte communications and related rulings | Strange asserts improper ex parte communications affected rulings. | HRsmart and court did not improperly influence proceedings. | Issue resolved as moot or unsupported by record; no reversible error shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (summary-judgment burdens and standards of review)
- American Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. 1997) (elements of contract claims and summary-judgment burden)
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (summary-judgment considerations and preserved theories)
- Goswami v. Metro. Sav. & Loan Assoc., 751 S.W.2d 487 (Tex. 1988) (trial-date considerations for amended pleadings and surprises)
- Halmos v. Bombardier Aerospace Corp., 314 S.W.3d 606 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (pleading and prejudice considerations in amendments)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (abuse-of-discretion standard in trial-court rulings)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standards for reviewing trial-court decisions)