Oak Mortgage Group, Inc. Michael H. Nasserfar Michael E. Task And Tycord R. Gosnay v. Ameripro Funding, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided October 16, 2015·No. 03-15-00416-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-15-00416-CV 7412400 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/16/2015 1:43:12 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK NO. 03-15-00416-CV

FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/16/2015 1:43:12 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk

OAK MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.; MICHAEL H. NASSERFAR; MICHAEL E. TASK; and TYCORD R. GOSNAY, Appellants, v.

AMERIPRO FUNDING, INC., Appellee.

On Appeal from the 345th District Court of Travis County, Texas Hon. Gisela D. Triana, Presiding

BRIEF OF APPELLEE AMERIPRO FUNDING, INC.

Susan P. Burton State Bar No. 03479350 sburton@gdhm.com Eric G. Behrens State Bar No. 02050700 ebehrens@gdhm.com IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Appellants/Plaintiffs/ Attorneys for Appellants/Plaintiffs/ Counter-Defendants Counter-Defendants

Oak Mortgage Group, Inc. Wm. Charles Bundren Michael H. Nasserfar WM. CHARLES BUNDREN & ASSOCIATES Michael E. Task Law Group, PLLC Tycord R. Gosnay 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300 Frisco, Texas 75034 (214) 808-3555 (Telephone) (972) 624-5340 (Facsimile) Charles@bundrenlaw.net

Appellee/Defendant/ Attorneys for Appellee/Defendant Counter-Plaintiff Counter-Plaintiff

Ameripro Funding, Inc. Susan P. Burton Eric G. Behrens GRAVES, DOUGHERTY, HEARON & MOODY, P.C. 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2200 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 480-5600 (Telephone) (512) 536-9908 (Facsimile) sburton@gdhm.com ebehrens@gdhm.com

ii ABBREVIATIONS AND RECORD CITATIONS

The following abbreviations and notations are used in this Brief:

CR; 1CR; 2CR References to the Clerk’s Record (record, supplement I, and supplement II).

1RR; 2RR; 3RR References to the Reporter’s Record (three volumes – Index, Transcript).

AX; PX; CX References to the exhibits (in Vol. 4 of the Reporter’s Record: Applicant Ameripro’s exhibits, Plaintiffs’ exhibits, Court exhibit).

App. Br. References to Brief of Appellants.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ...............................................................................ii

ABBREVIATIONS AND RECORD CITATIONS ...................................................................iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ ix

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...........................................................................................xiv

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ............................................................... xv

ISSUES PRESENTED ......................................................................................................xvi

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................1

I. Introduction: overview of the conduct which led to the injunction........1

II. Ameripro’s creation of the Lakeway branch office, and the Individual Appellants’ fiduciary roles for Ameripro ........................4

III. The non-solicitation clauses and ownership provisions in the Ameripro contracts ......................................................4

A. Ameripro’s confidential information includes each category outlined in the Temporary Injunction..............................5

B. Brohn, Clark Wilson, and Seaholm were Ameripro customers under the contractual non-solicitation clauses..............5

C. Oak Mortgage’s actual knowledge of the contract provisions ......7

IV. The Individual Appellants admitted that they took Ameripro’s confidential information and provided it to Ameripro’s competitor. They began doing so months before they resigned ............7

iv A. Appellants also downloaded and copied Ameripro’s financial and customer data from its office and computers ...........8

B. The confidential information that Appellants took from Ameripro enabled them to jumpstart a competing office ............12

V. Appellants began soliciting Ameripro’s customers for Oak Mortgage, even before the Individual Appellants had resigned from Ameripro..................................................................13

A. One month before the Individual Appellants resigned as fiduciaries, Oak Mortgage agreed to indemnify them against Ameripro, and told them they could solicit its customers ...........13

B. While they were Ameripro’s fiduciaries, the Individual Appellants began soliciting Ameripro customers for a competitor. Oak Mortgage sent “scripts” for them to use ..........14

VI. In addition to transmitting confidential data to Oak Mortgage before they resigned, the Individual Appellants removed over 20,000 Ameripro files and kept them as agents of Oak Mortgage .......16

VII. The Individual Appellants destroyed Ameripro documents, including its customer files, and destroyed files after the district court issued a TRO compelling their return..............................17

VIII. Appellants’ successful disruption of Ameripro’s business...................19

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................................................................................... 20

ARGUMENT ...............................................................................................................22

I. The Temporary Injunction satisfies the requirements of Rule 683 ......22

A. The reasons stated in the Temporary Injunction, which Appellants do not address or even mention in their brief ............22

v B. The reasons stated in the Temporary Injunction go further than is required by Rule 683, as shown by multiple decisions ....23

C. The decisions cited by Appellants do not assist them. One such decision lists the language from this Temporary Injunction as examples that “comply with rule 683” ...................28

II. Appellants’ own admissions establish that Ameripro’s builder clients are “customers” under the non-solicitation clauses...................30

A. Appellants make no attempt to address the testimony (including their own sworn admissions) that customers include borrowers and “builder customers”.................................30

B. The evidence regarding builder customers is consistent with the non-solicitation clause. .................................32

C. Appellants’ argument that the definition of “customers” should be construed against Ameripro conflicts with the contracts, which disclaim that either party is sole drafter............34

III. Injunctive relief was also independently warranted because Appellants were barred from soliciting Ameripro customers for a competitor in breach of fiduciary duties, separate and apart from their breaches of contract and misappropriation .................35

A. Appellants did not merely take the names of builder customers. They took pricing, lender credit data, compilations of builder preferences, and multiple other data from computers .................36

B. Appellants’ solicitation of Ameripro customers and use of confidential information for that purpose, even while the Individual Appellants were still Ameripro’s fiduciaries..............37

C. Even if Appellants supposedly could have publicly obtained some of the data they took from Ameripro computers, they tortiously downloaded Ameripro’s work product........................40

vi IV. Appellants’ argument that they had returned all confidential information of Ameripro prior to the hearing is also false ...................42

A.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Oak Mortgage Group, Inc. Michael H. Nasserfar Michael E. Task And Tycord R. Gosnay v. Ameripro Funding, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Oak Mortgage Group, Inc. Michael H. Nasserfar Michael E. Task And Tycord R. Gosnay v. Ameripro Funding, Inc. (Oak Mortgage Group, Inc. Michael H. Nasserfar Michael E. Task And Tycord R. Gosnay v. Ameripro Funding, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Guy Carpenter & Company, Inc. v. Anthony Provenzale
334 F.3d 459 (Fifth Circuit, 2003)
ERI Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Swinnea
318 S.W.3d 867 (Texas Supreme Court, 2010)
Reach Group, L.L.C. v. Angelina Group
173 S.W.3d 834 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Sharma v. Vinmar International, Ltd.
231 S.W.3d 405 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
American Precision Vibrator Co. v. National Air Vibrator Co.
771 S.W.2d 562 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
University Interscholastic League v. Torres
616 S.W.2d 355 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1981)
General Homes, Inc. v. Wingate Civic Ass'n
616 S.W.2d 351 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Frequent Flyer Depot, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc.
281 S.W.3d 215 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co.
84 S.W.3d 198 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)
Fox v. Tropical Warehouses, Inc.
121 S.W.3d 853 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. v. Bowen
106 S.W.3d 230 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Universal Health Services, Inc. v. Thompson
24 S.W.3d 570 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Amalgamated Acme Affiliates, Inc. v. Minton
33 S.W.3d 387 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
American Precision Vibrator Co. v. National Air Vibrator Co.
764 S.W.2d 274 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Matrix Network, Inc. v. Ginn
211 S.W.3d 944 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
IAC, LTD. v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.
160 S.W.3d 191 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center v. Rao
105 S.W.3d 763 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Pinebrook Properties, Ltd. v. Brookhaven Lake Property Owners Ass'n
77 S.W.3d 487 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)