A state appeals court determined that three former employees of a management and consultancy services company have no standing in their appeal of a Harris County trial court’s 2018 opinion and judgment against them.
The Texas First Court of Appeals issued a 50-page opinion authored by Chief Justice Richard Hightower on Feb. 20, upholding the Harris County 270th District Court’s decision in favor of WSP USA, Inc., WSP USA Buildings, Inc. AND WSP USA Administration, Inc. in the entities’ lawsuit against appellants Derek Gaskamp, Jonathan Miller, and Andrew Hunter.
WSP sued the men for “for breach of loyalty, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with existing contracts and prospective business relations, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, and civil conspiracy” and eventually won the litigation. The lower court’s ruling was then appealed by the trio on grounds of “[w]hether the two-sentence verification to WSP Buildings’s and WSP Administration’s [second] amended petition satisfied their evidentiary burden in response to Appellants’ motion to dismiss,” “the trial court erred in not awarding attorneys’ fees against WSP USA, Inc. after it failed to file a response to Appellants’ motion to dismiss” and “[w]hether WSP Buildings and WSP Administration presented clear and specific evidence sufficient to state a prima facie case as to each of [their] claims.”
A panel led by Hightower determined that “the complained-of communications between the Appellants [and others]—through which they allegedly misappropriated, shared, and used WSP’s trade secrets, breached their fiduciary duties, and conspired to further their business venture—are not protected under the [Texas Citizens Participation Act] as either an exercise of Appellants’ right of association or an exercise of their right of free speech.”
The court also overruled the appellants’ assertions “WSP USA did not file a response to [A]ppellants’ motion to dismiss, the trial court erred by not awarding [A]ppellants attorneys’ fees against WSP USA” and “WSP Buildings and WSP Administration did not meet their burden to prove a prima facie case as to each of their claims.”