Oak Mortgage Group, Inc. Michael H. Nasserfar Michael E. Task And Tycord R. Gosnay v. Ameripro Funding, Inc.
03-15-00416-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 7, 2015Background
- Ameripro Funding, Inc. sued former Lakeway branch fiduciaries for misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, contract breaches, and tortious conduct; Ameripro sought a temporary injunction.
- Individual Appellants—Nasserfar, Task, Gosnay—resigned Jan 15, 2015 and immediately formed Oak Mortgage’s Lakeway branch.
- Before resigning, the Appellants secretly transmitted Ameripro confidential records to Oak Mortgage and downloaded thousands of files from Ameripro’s computers.
- Oak Mortgage indemnified the Appellants and instructed them on soliciting Ameripro’s customers, aiding in breaches of fiduciary duties and non-solicitation clauses.
- Appellants continued to solicit Ameripro customers while fiduciaries, and retained, destroyed, or concealed Ameripro documents after a TRO, leading the district court to grant a June 16, 2015 Temporary Injunction.
- This is an interlocutory appeal challenging the injunction’s justifications and scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 683 suffices to support the Temporary Injunction | Ameripro (plaintiff) | Appellants dispute sufficiency of stated reasons | Yes; injunction reasons satisfy Rule 683 |
| Whether builders are Ameripro “customers” under the non-solicitation clauses | Builders are within the contract’s “customers” scope | Builders are not included as customers | Yes; builders are within the contractual “customers” concept |
| Whether misappropriated information stored on Ameripro’s computer network supports injunctive relief | Misappropriated data stored on Ameripro’s network shows irreparable harm | Arguments about data not constituting misappropriation | Yes; evidence supports irreparable harm and need for injunctive relief |
| Whether Appellants returned all confidential information and complied with the TRO | Appellants did not fully return, destroyed data, and retained copies | They returned what was required and complied with TRO | No; improper retention and destruction weighed in favor of injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Amalgamated Acme Affiliates, Inc. v. Minton, 33 S.W.3d 387 (Tex. App. – Austin 2000) (injunctions may satisfy Rule 683 if injury and reasons are sufficiently stated)
- IAC, Ltd. v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 160 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2005) (injury to trade secrets may be presumed; detailed reasons support Rule 683)
- Inex Indus., Inc. v. Alpar Resources, Inc., 717 S.W.2d 685 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 1986) (recitations of reasons can satisfy Rule 683)
- Universal Health Serv. v. Thompson, 24 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. App. – Austin 2000) (upholding injunction where damages inadequate or difficult to prove)
- Garth v. Staktek Corp., 876 S.W.2d 545 (Tex. App. – Austin 1994) (injunctions may protect trade secrets and prevent unfair competition)