Madison/GrahamColorgraphics v. Graphic Press
This lawsuit arose after salesman Paul Good, who was working for one commercial printing company, Madison/Graham ColorGraphics, Inc. (ColorGraphics), went to work for a competitor, Graphic Press, Inc. (Graphic Press). Soon thereafter,ColorGraphics realized some of its clients had shifted their business toGraphic Press. It sued on the theory Graphic Press and its owner, John Zamora,conspired with Good to spy on ColorGraphics, lure away clients, and steal tradesecrets. Graphic Press and Zamora maintained they were unaware of Good's alleged misconduct and they had no reason to suspect any wrongful conduct. It was their belief ColorGraphics lostbusiness to Graphic Press for legitimate business reasons, such as its state of the art equipment, better connections, and its excellent reputation in the industry. They filed a cross complaint against ColorGraphics.
A juryfound Good liable for (1) breach of hisemployment contract ($25,000); (2) breachof fiduciary duty ($182,000); and (3) misappropriation of trade secrets ($161,400). In addition, it determined Good was not acting within the scope of his employment when he intentionally interfered withColorGraphics's prospective economic advantage (intentional interference).
Thisopinion also addresses ColorGraphics's appeal from the court's refusal to instruct the jury Good was acting in the scope of his employment when he intentionally interfered with its customer relationships. ColorGraphics maintains the court should not have forced it to choose between theories of recovery and challenges the court's order denying its JNOV based on the argument the evidence clearly supported its other tort claims against Zamoraand Graphic Press. Court conclude these arguments lack merit and the portion of the judgment concerning these claims is affirmed.
Comments on Madison/GrahamColorgraphics v. Graphic Press