Among other things, at HALO ’s request, Mr. Ford immediately after discovering, from a review of his emails, evidence of this conduct. 4 This activity had occurred since the final months of 2017, was done in coordination with a HALO regional vice president, and involved multiple members of HALO ’s management and staff.
Ford was, in fact, already working for HALO, had communicated with All Star customers about his move, moved customer orders to HALO, and took artwork and files from All Star. The owners did not learn for about a week that Mr. All Star’s owners permitted him to remain at the company with an indeterminate last date of employment.
Doug Ford, who began working at All Star in 1994, announced early in 2018 that he would leave the company to take a sales position with HALO. “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, giving the plaintiff the benef it of all reasonable inferences and disregarding evidence and inferences that conflict with that verdict.” Moody v. All Star has never missed payroll, but it occasionally has cash-flow problems. It imposes no sales quotas, and, while employees build customer relationships, customers do not “belong” to individual employees. All Star is a family-owned operation with 20 employees. Many of HALO’s account executives work on straight commission. 3 Its emphasis on growth relies, in part, on bringing into the firm account executives with an existing book of business when hired from other promotional products companies, such as All Star. HALO is a large, full-service promotional-products distributor with some 2,000 employees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings. HALO files a cross-appeal, contesting the court’s refusal to grant it a directed verdict on the tortious interference claim, its admission of certain evidence and testimony, and its denial, in part, of the motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to the punitive-damages award. All Star challenges the circuit court’s action as a misstatement and misapplication of the statutory damages cap, § 510.265.1, 2 and to the extent that the circuit court may have reduced the jury’s punitive-damages verdict as a matter of constitutional due process or remittitur. The circuit court reduced the punitive -damages award against HALO to $2,627,709.40. and $12,000 in punitive damages against the employee, as well as $5.5 million in punitive damages against HALO. Doug Ford is not a party to this appeal or cross -appeal. 1 The jury awarded All Star actual damages of $25,541.88 for the employee’s breach of the duty of loyalty and HALO’s civil conspiracy to breach that duty $500,000 in damages for the employee’s and HALO’s tortious interference 1 Former employee Mr. on claims of civil conspiracy to breach the duty of loyalty arising from the conduct of a former employee and ensuing tortious interference with business expectancy. appeals an amended Jackson County Circuit Court judgment reducing the punitive damages awarded by a jury against HALO Branded Solutions, Inc. Torrence, Judge Before Division Two: Lisa White Hardwick, P.J., Thomas H. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WD83327 consolidated with WD83352 OPINION FILED: JanuAppeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri Honorable John M. HALO BRANDED SOLUTIONS, INC., Respondent-Appellant.
MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT ALL STAR AWARDS & AD SPECIALTIES INC., Appellant-Respondent, v.
0 kommentar(er)
