524 F. App'x 939
5th Cir.2013Background
- Target Strike owned proprietary software to analyze public data and identify 73 target areas for potential mining on federal land in Nevada.
- Marston Environmental performed field work; Hartley created a map and Williams prepared a draft business plan; confidentiality obligations were included in contracts.
- Gold Resources joint venture was formed to explore 16 target areas; Marston performed work under a contract with confidentiality terms.
- Shaffer, as independent contractor for Diamond Mountain/Gold Reef related projects, staked five mining claims near Target Strike’s target areas in 2005 using standard claim-staking procedures.
- Target Strike sued in state court for misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; case removed to federal court, later amended to include Lanham Act claims and then voluntary dismissal of federal claims, while state-law claims remained.
- District court granted multiple summary judgments for defendants; the court addressed subject-matter jurisdiction, summary-judgment standards, and limitations defenses, leading to affirmation on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction after federal claim dismissal | Target Strike argued lack of jurisdiction post-dismissal and sought remand. | Defendants argued the district court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims. | District court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction. |
| Merits of summary judgment on the misappropriation claims against Hartley, Shaffer, and Addington Defendants | Target Strike contends genuine issues of material fact remain regarding misappropriation. | Hartley, Shaffer, and Addington Defendants argue no triable issues exist. | Affirmed summary judgment on the merits for these defendants. |
| Limitations defense for remaining defendants | Discovery-rule-based tolling should apply to allow timely suit. | Limitations barred the claims; discovery rule did not save claims here. | Affirmed limitations-based summary judgments for Marston, Capps, Williams, and Strobel. |
| Whether the district court erred in striking Target Strike’s damages expert | Target Strike sought to present damages testimony as part of its case. | Defendants maintained the damages expert should be struck. | Not decided on appeal; underlying limitations barred review of damages expert issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amitts v. Amoco Prod. Co., 53 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 1995) (subject-matter jurisdiction can be cured by amendment)
- Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d 1200 (5th Cir. 1997) (removal and supplemental jurisdiction principles)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1988) (basis for supplemental jurisdiction balancing economy, convenience, fairness, and comity)
- Cadle Co. v. Wilson, 136 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. 2004) (statutory discovery rule for misappropriation claims; diligence standard)
- HECI Exploration Co. v. Neel, 982 S.W.2d 881 (Tex. 1998) (reasonable diligence and discovery rule for damages and injury timing)
- S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996) (discovery rule applied to determine when injury is discovered)
- LLEH, Inc. v. Wichita Cnty., Tex., 289 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2002) (court may affirm on alternative grounds)