|
Background on ISR’s Lawsuit
against former instructors
In April 2000, Harvey Barnett, Inc. and
Infant Swimming Research, Inc. filed suit in federal
District Court in Denver, Colorado, against two former ISR
Master Instructors, Ann Shidler and Judy Heumann, and newly
trained ISR instructor Alison Geerdes, claiming
misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contact, unjust
enrichment, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices,
trademark infringement and misleading trade practices.
At the same time, Barnett also filed suit
against a former ISR Master Instructor in Florida.
What Happened?
ISR has been unable to stop these former
instructors from teaching children or training instructors
in infant aquatic survival techniques.
Detailed History of the Colorado
Case
ISR was denied a Preliminary
Injunction
At the beginning of the law suit, ISR
tried to get a court order which would prohibit these
instructors from teaching children and training other
instructors how to teach infant aquatic survival. The Court
denied ISR’s request saying:
"ISR argues that if instructors are
trained improperly, children could die. I am unpersuaded."
"ISR has provided no evidence that any
instructor trained in Defendant’s curriculum would pose any
greater risk to children than does the average new ISR
instructor. I therefore conclude that ISR has failed to
meet its burden to show that a preliminary injunction is in
the public’s best interest."
--Lewis T. Babcock, Chief Judge,
Federal Court for District of Colorado
Click here for a full copy of the Court’s ruling.
ISR lost on
Summary Judgment
After the hearing on ISR’s request for an
injunction, the instructors requested that all the claims
against them be dismissed. The Court agreed, dismissed all
the claims and awarded the instructors their attorney’s fees
of approximately $145,000.
The Court said:
Click here for a full copy of the Court’s ruling on Summary
Judgment
ISR appealed and
the Court of Appeals Affirmed the Dismissal of Most Claims
ISR had originally argued that these
instructors were competing unfairly and were trying to steal
ISR’s identity. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower
court and found that there was no evidence to support these
claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the
Trademark Infringement claims, the Unfair Competition Claim,
the Unjust Enrichment Claim, and the Deceptive Trade
Practices Claim. The instructors won on all of these
claims.
Click here for a full copy of the Court of Appeals Ruling
Court of Appeals
required a trial on trade secret and breach of contract
claims
Because the Court of Appeals thought
there was a dispute as to whether ISR really had trade
secrets, the Court of Appeals ordered that the limited
claims of misappropriation of trade secret and breach of
contract be tried before a jury.
Click here for a full copy of the Court of Appeals Ruling
Jury found that
there was no misappropriation of trade secret
Throughout the trial, ISR claimed that by
teaching children and training instructors about infant
aquatic survival skills, these instructors were necessarily
stealing ISR’s trade secrets. None of the instructors
denied that they continued to teach children aquatic
survival skills after leaving ISR. However, the jury
determined that teaching children and training instructors
did NOT mean that these instructors were using ISR’s
trade secrets.
Jury found in
favor of Alison Geerdes on all claims and she was awarded
$48,000 in attorney's fees
Not only did the jury find that Alison
did not use ISR’s trade secrets after leaving ISR, the jury
also decided that Alison Geerdes did not breach her contract
with ISR in any way. Even though she continued to teach
children, she was completely exonerated of any wrong doing.
She was also awarded her attorney’s fees.
Jury found that
there was a breach of contract
The jury found that Judy Heumann and Ann
Shidler did breach their contract, not by teaching, but
supposedly by disclosing ISR’s confidential information.
Heumann and Shidler believe that there was no evidence to
support this finding and have appealed the jury verdict on
this point.
ISR was denied a
comprehensive injunction
Although the jury found that two of the
instructors did disclose some confidential information, the
Court refused to impose any significant injunction against
them. ISR wanted an injunction which would have prohibited
these instructors from teaching swimming to children using
techniques that are the same or similar to ISR’s
techniques. The Court denied ISR’s request.
Quotes from the Court Order are telling
“The Court also agrees with the
defendants that despite all the evidence offered at trial,
it is difficult to articulate the contours of plaintiff's
trade secret with any precision. Thus, . . . there is no
basis on which to enjoin any defendant from violating
plaintiff's unspecified trade secret(s), whatever those
trade secret(s) may be.”
“[Even after the evidence] it remains
unclear to this Court exactly what "confidential
information" may have been used by the defendants in their
business of teaching swimming to either instructors or
students. It also remains murky to this Court exactly what
part of the "methods, materials, techniques, trade secrets
and/or systems used by ISR" are confidential, for as the
defendants correctly point out,
plaintiff argued that it was the system as a whole that was
the trade secret. To the extent that plaintiff has not
articulated with specificity the contours of plaintiff's
"confidential information," or the confidential "methods,
materials, techniques, trade secrets and/or systems used by
ISR," which it seeks to be the subject of the proposed
injunction, this Court agrees with defendants that any such
injunction would be imprecise and could lead to further
costly and probably meaningless litigation.”
Phillip Figa, District Court Judge,
Federal Court for District of Colorado
Global Ruling on Post Trial Motions,
May 5, 2004
Click here for a copy of the Court’s Global Order on Post
Trial Motions
Claims are on appeal
All parties are appealing.
See final order here.
BACK TO TOP
|
