Trotman v. VELOCITEACH PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC
311 Ga. App. 208
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Trotman, a former Velociteach instructor, was terminated in 2006 under a confidentiality agreement requiring return/delete of materials and a three-year non-solicitation.
- Trotman formed CertiFi in 2006 and began teaching independently, using materials alleged to be Velociteach-originated.
- Velociteach sued Trotman and CertiFi for breach of contract, UDTPA, fraud, tortious interference, conversion, and misappropriation of trade secrets.
- An injunction prohibited use of certain slides and required disclosure of persons shown; contempt found for violation of this injunction.
- Juries awarded Velociteach $13,750 from Trotman and $134,000 from CertiFi; court awarded $30,000 in attorney fees under OCGA 9-15-14(b), later vacated for improper apportionment and remanded.
- The appeal consolidated cases affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings on attorney fees; motion for reconsideration denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| UDTPA injunction based on verdict | Trotman failed to show basis for injunction given past conduct | Velociteach proven UDTPA liability supports broad injunction | Injunction affirmed based on UDTPA findings. |
| Attorneys’ fees under OCGA 9-15-14(b) apportionment | Fees should reflect sanctionable conduct | Trial court decision adequate | Vacated for improper apportionment; remanded for proper factfinding. |
| Conversion sufficiency against CertiFi | Materials were Velociteach property, conversion occurred | Confidentiality agreement impacts possession/ownership | Evidence supported conversion; no reversal. |
| Jury charge on UDTPA likelihood of confusion | Proposed Ackerman-based charge correct | Charge was improper dicta; Ackerman cited correctly | No reversible error; trial court properly charged law of actual confusion not required. |
| Exclusion of evidence of racial bias | Bias evidence relevant to motive | Evidence inflammatory and not probative of termination | Trial court did not abuse discretion in exclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ackerman Security Systems v. Design Security Systems, 201 Ga.App. 805, 412 S.E.2d 588 (1991) (actual confusion not necessary to prove likelihood of confusion; dicta cited by party lacked binding force)
- Essex Group, Inc. v. Southwire Co., 269 Ga. 553, 501 S.E.2d 501 (1998) (equitable relief within trial court's discretion; review for abuse of discretion)
- Hefner v. Maiorana, 259 Ga.App. 176, 576 S.E.2d 580 (2003) (charge must reflect correct law; adjustment to evidence necessary)
- Sellers v. Burrowes, 302 Ga.App. 667, 691 S.E.2d 607 (2010) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Brewer v. Paulk, 296 Ga.App. 26, 673 S.E.2d 545 (2009) (attorney fee awards must be apportioned to sanctionable conduct)