Ramsey v. Sheet Pile

130 F.4th 193 (5th Cir. 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · March 3, 2025 · No. 23-50911

Summary

The Fifth Circuit reviews a district court's judgment in a dispute between a former CFO and his employer over breach of an employment agreement and a loan. The court addresses challenges to a jury instruction on prior material breach, the award of prejudgment interest, and the denial of a permanent injunction. It affirms the prior material breach finding, vacates the damages award regarding interest, and remands for further proceedings on remittitur and potential injunctive relief.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Elrod; Higginbotham; Southwick
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decision date
March 3, 2025
Docket number
23-50911
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas; district court awarded prejudgment interest, denied injunction; appellate court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion for jury instructions and injunctive relief; de novo for Rule 50(b) judgment as a matter of law.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Sheet Pile, L.L.C. v. Douglas Ramsey
Disposition
remanded

Topics

breach of contractmaterial breachinjunctionsremediescontract interpretation

Practice areas

contractsemployment lawcivil procedureappellate procedureremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the jury instruction that a prior material breach by Sheet Pile discharged Ramsey’s duty to perform under the employment agreement was proper under Texas law.
  2. Whether the district court erred by not reducing the jury’s damages award and by granting prejudgment interest, resulting in double recovery.
  3. Whether the district court erred in denying a permanent injunction requiring Ramsey to return confidential information.

Holdings

  1. The district court did not err; the instruction was proper and the jury’s finding of prior material breach was supported by the evidence.
  2. The district court erred by not offering a remittitur; the prejudgment interest award created an impermissible double recovery and the court must remand for a remittitur based on the amount owed at filing.
  3. The district court did not err; it properly required a showing of likelihood of future disclosure, which Sheet Pile failed to demonstrate.

Key quotations

The district court did not err in refusing to grant Sheet Pile’s requested injunction, finding that Sheet Pile had not shown that Ramsey was likely to disclose confidential information in the future. (at 12)
Prejudgment interest runs from the date the suit is filed to the day before judgment is rendered. (at 11)

Factual background

Ramsey, CFO of Sheet Pile, was promised salary and bonus and signed a non‑compete and confidentiality agreement. He loaned Sheet Pile $100,000. Sheet Pile allegedly failed to pay the final salary and bonus and terminated Ramsey in December 2019. Ramsey sued for breach of the loan and employment agreement; Sheet Pile counterclaimed and sought an injunction. A jury awarded Ramsey salary, bonus, and loan damages, found he breached the employment agreement but that breach was excused by Sheet Pile’s prior material breach, and awarded prejudgment interest.

Procedural history

Ramsey sued Sheet Pile in Texas state court, removed to the Western District of Texas, where a jury found in his favor on salary, bonus, and loan damages, and found he breached the employment agreement but excused by Sheet Pile's prior material breach. The district court entered judgment with prejudgment interest and denied Sheet Pile’s injunction. Sheet Pile appealed.

Remand instructions

District court must offer Ramsey a remittitur based on the amount owed on the loan as of the filing date and consider whether to issue an injunction requiring return of any confidential documents he retains.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…