Doug Killough, et al v. All Points Logistics, LLC

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11996
____________________
DOUG KILLOUGH,
TECHNICAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellees,
versus
PHIL MONKRESS,
Defendant-Counter Claimant,
ALL POINTS LOGISTICS, LLC,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11996 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 01/18/2024 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11996
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 5:17-cv-00247-AKK
____________________
Before WILLIAM PRYOR , Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and ABUDU,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case arises out of a dispute concerning alleged oral con-
tracts. Plaintiffs Doug Killough and his company, Technical Con-
sulting Solutions, Inc., sued his former employer, All Points Logis-
tics, LLC, for breach of contract. All Points filed counterclaims for
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and loyalty, and viola-
tions of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and Alabama Trade Secrets
Act. After a ten-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in Plaintiffs’
favor on two breach-of-contract claims and awarded significant
damages.1
All Points raises numerous issues on appeal. Specifically, All
Points argues that the district court should not have denied its mo-
tion for judgment as a matter of law, renewed motion for judgment
as a matter of law, motion for a new trial, and motion for remittitur
of damages as to Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract novation claims. It
also challenges the district court’s denial of All Points’s motion for
1 Because we write for the parties, we do not set forth the facts and procedural
history of this matter in detail, as the parties are familiar with them.
USCA11 Case: 22-11996 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 01/18/2024 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

22-11996 Opinion of the Court 3
judgment as a matter of law and renewed motion for judgment as
a matter of law as to Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract profit-sharing
claim. Besides these matters, All Points challenges the district
court’s grant of summary judgment foreclosing All Points’s coun-
terclaim for breach of fiduciary duty based on the faithless-servant
doctrine. Continuing, All Points argues as well that the district
court should have granted its motion for a new trial on the ground
that the jury returned an inappropriate compromise verdict. Not
only that, but All Points challenges several evidentiary rulings,
statements made during trial, jury instructions, and verdict-form
rulings. Finally, All Points asserts that the district court should not
have denied its motion for a permanent injunction and statutory
fees.
On appeal, All Points asks us to (1) reverse the district court’s
grant of summary judgment as to the faithless-servant doctrine and
denial of judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ breach-of-con-
tract claims; (2) order a new trial on Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract
novation claim (or, alternatively, remit associated damages), Plain-
tiffs’ breach-of-contract profit-sharing claim, and all of All Points’s
counterclaims; and (3) order the district court to impose a perma-
nent injunction on Plaintiffs’ use, disclosure, or retention of All
Points’s trade secrets.
After careful review of the record and with the benefit of
oral argument, we find that each of All Points’s proposed grounds
for reversal or remand lack merit. We agree with the well-rea-
soned rulings of the district court.
USCA11 Case: 22-11996 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 01/18/2024 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-11996
So we affirm the district court’s ruling on each issue.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-11996 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 01/18/2024 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --