SolarBee, Inc. v. Walker
2013 ND 110
| N.D. | 2013Background
- SolarBee employed Walker and Eilers as regional managers; each signed employment and proprietary information agreements.
- District court trial in 2011 found breaches of those agreements and, as additional basis, conspiracy and unlawful interference with SolarBee’s business relations.
- Evidence centered on email exchanges showing cross-communication with competitors and potential oxygenation ventures.
- Damages awarded: Walker $541,800 and Eilers $80,800, with trial court noting some causation and measurement uncertainty.
- Appeal addressed whether breach-of-employment-contract damages could be sustained despite pleading issues and whether damages were properly proven and calculated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was breach of the employment contract improperly considered since not pled? | SolarBee contends breach of employment contracts was pled via related agreements. | Walk er/Eilers argue breach of employment contracts was not pled. | Breach-of-employment-contract issue tried by consent; proper under implied amendment. |
| Are the district court’s Rule 52(a) findings adequate for the proprietary information breach? | Findings sufficiently describe the breach of proprietary information agreements. | Challenge to sufficiency of findings to prove elements. | Findings are adequate and not clearly erroneous. |
| Are the damages for breach of proprietary information agreements properly ascertainable and supported? | Damages supported by expert testimony and calculations. | Damages speculative and not tied to pled theories. | Damages supported; uncertainty of amount is permissible where fact of damages is established. |
| Did the district court err in the proportion of damages assigned to Walker and Eilers (35% and 20%)? | SolarBee's damages calculations support higher allocations. | Defendants argue for different allocation. | Court correctly allocated 35% to Walker and 20% to Eilers to avoid double recovery. |
| Whether the conspiracy/interference theory requires reversal since breach was independently established? | Conspiracy/intentional interference alternative grounds. | Argument unnecessary given established breach. | Affirmed on breach of employment and proprietary information agreements; conspiracy theory not addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mann v. Zabolotny, 615 N.W.2d 526 (ND 2000) (consent to unpled issue requires lack of objection or clear indicia of intent to try)
- Fleck v. Jacques Seed Co., 445 N.W.2d 649 (ND 1989) (implied amendments require clear indication of trial intent)
- City of Fargo v. Salsman, 760 N.W.2d 123 (ND 2009) (findings of fact must provide understanding of factual basis)
- Vallejo v. Jamestown College, 244 N.W.2d 753 (ND 1976) (measure of damages for contract breach: compensate for loss avoided by performance)
- Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Schirado, 717 N.W.2d 576 (ND 2006) (evidentiary imprecision on damages does not preclude recovery)