TASF, LLC D/B/A Turnaround Special Forces, LLC Eddie Garza, Clint Dewispelaera, Alex Castillo and John Ruff v. Turn2 Specilaty Companies, LLC and Turn2 Workforce Solutions, LLC
01-21-00089-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 10, 2022Background
- Parties are turnover/turnaround contractors; Turn2 Specialty Companies (and subsidiary Workforce Solutions) provided services at Formosa Plastics; Garza formed competing TASF, LLC.
- Three former Turn2 project managers (Dewispelaere, Castillo, Ruff) sent Garza emails containing Turn2 documents: a 9C‑WHM blanket Formosa contract, rate sheets (pay/billing/per diem/equipment), and a vendor list.
- Turn2 sued for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims and obtained a temporary injunction prohibiting use/disclosure of Turn2’s proprietary information and (initially) barring new Formosa contracts or subcontracting at Formosa.
- After an 8‑day injunction hearing, the trial court found Turn2 likely showed trade‑secret ownership, reasonable secrecy measures, misappropriation, and irreparable harm; it entered a broad injunction. While appeal was pending, the court modified the injunction so the Formosa work restrictions expired on Nov. 18, 2021.
- The court of appeals affirmed the injunction on the merits (ownership, secrecy steps, economic value) but sustained in part the appellees’ vagueness challenge and modified the injunction to specifically enumerate the protected categories of information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope: prohibition on soliciting/entering new Formosa contracts | Injunction needed to preserve status quo and prevent unfair competition at Formosa | Overbroad restrains lawful competition and constitutional rights | Moot — provision expired by court order while appeal was pending |
| Specificity/vagueness of injunction (Rule 683) | Broad, illustrative list gives adequate notice and protects secrets | Non‑exclusive phrasing leaves defendants unable to know what is barred | Sustained in part — injunction modified to list specific categories (confidential base wage rates, billing rates, per diem amounts, contract terms/conditions, vendor contract/approval info) |
| Ownership of alleged trade secrets (who owns rates/contract) | Turn2: rate sheets, contract terms, vendor list are Turn2’s proprietary information | Defendants: Formosa is the contract “Owner,” so contract info belongs to Formosa | Held for Turn2 — contract language did not transfer ownership of Turn2’s rate/billing info to Formosa |
| Trade‑secret elements: reasonable secrecy measures & economic value/readily ascertainable | Turn2: limited access, confidentiality footers, restricted electronic storage, managers warned employees; secrets have economic value and enable undercutting | Defendants: no NDAs, many employees had access, rates are industry knowledge/readily ascertainable | Held for Turn2 — evidence supported trial court’s discretionary findings that Turn2 took reasonable measures and information derived independent economic value; injunction not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott v. Anti‑Defamation League Austin, Sw., & Texoma Regions, 610 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. 2020) (standards for temporary injunction and preservation of status quo)
- Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. 1993) (preliminary injunction maintains status quo pending trial)
- HouseCanary, Inc. v. Title Source, Inc., 622 S.W.3d 254 (Tex. 2021) (trade‑secret protection does not require absolute secrecy at preliminary stage)
- INEOS Grp. Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., LP, 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (probable‑right standard for temporary injunction)
- T‑N‑T Motorsports, Inc. v. Hennessey Motorsports, Inc., 965 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (employee duty not to use employer’s confidential information adversely)
- Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92 (Tex. 2009) (appellate review defers to trial court when some evidence supports injunction)