Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Rouses Enters., L.L.C., v. Clapp

Rouses Enters., L.L.C., v. Clapp

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

March 8, 2022, Filed

No. 21-30293

Opinion

Per Curiam:1

Rouses Enterprises, L.L.C. appeals the dismissal of its suit to enforce a non-compete agreement against its former employee James B. Clapp II. Because Clapp was not employed by Rouses when he signed the agreement, it is unenforceable under Louisiana law. We therefore affirm.

Rouses is a grocery store chain operating in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Clapp interviewed with Rouses for a position as Vice President of Center Store Merchandizing in December 2017. After an initial phone interview, Rouses sent Clapp an "Agreement not to Compete Against or Disclose Information of Rouses Enterprises, LLC." The agreement does not refer to Clapp as an applicant or prospective employee, but as "an employee of Rouses." Clapp signed [*2]  the agreement on December 28, 2017. At that time, Clapp was not an employee of Rouses.

Rouses offered Clapp the position on January 23, 2018. Clapp began his employment on February 12, 2018.

Clapp worked for Rouses until January 2020, when he was asked to resign. In March 2020, Clapp began working for Brookshire Grocery Company, a competitor of Rouses based in Tyler, Texas. On March 18, 2020, Clapp walked the Rouses' store in New Iberia, Louisiana, with other Brookshire employees. His visit did not go unnoticed: two days later, Rouses' HR director emailed Clapp and told him (1) he had been spotted in a Rouses and (2) to "[p]lease refer to the signed non-compete agreement . . . which forbids you to work in a Parish/County we conduct business in."

In July 2020, Rouses sued Clapp for damages and injunctive relief in Louisiana state court. Clapp removed the case to the Eastern District of Louisiana. After holding a bench trial in April 2021, the district court denied Rouses' claims, finding Rouses failed to prove that the non-compete agreement was valid and enforceable under Louisiana law. Rouses appealed.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 5980 *

ROUSES ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., Plaintiff—Appellant, versus JAMES B. CLAPP II, Defendant—Appellee.

Notice: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Prior History:  [*1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. USDC No. 2:20-CV-2378.

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

non-compete, district court, unenforceable, prospective employee, restrictive covenant, injunctive relief, final decision, bench trial, de novo, municipalities, termination, employees, interview, Grocery, carries

Civil Procedure, Trials, Bench Trials, Real Property Law, Encumbrances, Restrictive Covenants, Creation of Restrictive Covenants, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Clearly Erroneous Review, Enforcement of Restrictive Covenants, Governments, Courts, Judicial Precedent, Labor & Employment Law, Conditions & Terms, Trade Secrets & Unfair Competition, Customers of Former Employer, Noncompetition & Nondisclosure Agreements, Business & Corporate Compliance, Contract Conditions & Provisions, Contracts Law, Contract Conditions & Provisions