Case: 17-14317 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-14317
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv-61446-BB
CIRCUITRONIX, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company,
Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellant,
versus
SUNNY KAPOOR,
an individual,
Defendant - Third Party Plaintiff -
Counter Claimant - Appellee,
RISHI KUKREJA,
Defendant - Third Party Defendant - Appellee.
Case: 17-14317 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 Page: 2 of 10
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 31, 2018)
Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Circuitronix, LLC appeals the district court’s determination that its former
employee, Sunny Kapoor, did not violate the terms of the non-compete agreement
reached between the parties. Having concluded the district court did not clearly err
in making the factual findings that underlie its judgment, we affirm.
I
Circuitronix is a company that manufactures and distributes various metal
parts for several industries. The bulk of its business involves printed circuit boards
(PCBs)—an essential component in almost all finished electronic products—and
printed circuit board assembly (PCBA)—the process of assembling component
parts to form PCBs. Kapoor served as the Assistant CEO of Circuitronix from
October 2012 until his termination in March 2015. His employment was subject to
a series of employment agreements. Following his termination, Circuitronix
initiated the underlying suit alleging that Kapoor violated several of these
agreements. Kapoor filed counterclaims against Circuitronix and its CEO Rishi
2
Case: 17-14317 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 Page: 3 of 10
Kukreja, asserting claims of breach of employment contract, unlawful retaliation,
civil theft, and unpaid wages.
The parties resolved the disputed claims in mediation and on December 1,
2015 signed a “Mediated Settlement Term Sheet.” As part of their agreement,
Kapoor was required to disclose all business activities in which he was currently
engaged that could potentially constitute violations of any of his employment
contracts. The Term Sheet also provided a “general release of all claims by the
parties against one another” based on any conduct occurring “prior to and
including the date [that the eventual Settlement Agreement] is executed.” Kapoor
provided an affidavit disclosing his business activities on December 15, 2015, and
the parties entered a final Settlement Agreement on the same day. The Settlement
Agreement incorporated the Mediated Settlement Term Sheet by reference and
prohibited Kapoor from competing “with Circuitronix, anywhere in the world, for
a period of 3 years starting from September 15, 2015.” The restriction explicitly
applied “to all lines of business in which Circuitronix engaged” during the time of
Kapoor’s employment. The Settlement Agreement was formally approved by the
district court two days later.
Less than two weeks thereafter, Circuitronix filed its first motion for
enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, in which it claimed Kapoor was
competing directly with Circuitronix through his work for his father-in-law’s
3
Case: 17-14317 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 Page: 4 of 10
metal-parts company, Bawa Machine and Tool Manufacturing (BMTM). The
motion was resolved when the parties filed a Joint Stipulation providing that
Kapoor’s work with his father-in-law did not involve certain identified metal parts
and reiterating that Kapoor could not compete with “any line of Circuitronix’s
business.”
A few months later, in April 2016, Kukreja discovered a website operated by
Imaginasian Hong Kong, a company for which Kapoor remains the general
manager and sole employee, which led Kukreja to believe that either Imaginasian
Hong Kong or Imaginasian India—another company with which Kapoor was
associated—was directly competing with Circuitronix. In particular, Kukreja
believed that Imaginasian’s product lines advertised as “Electronics” and
“Mechanics” might run afoul of the restrictive covenants contained in the
Settlement Agreement. Kukreja soon came to believe that Imaginasian was also
competing with Circuitronix through BMTM and a separate company called Koala
Holdings, LLC—a company owned by Kapoor’s brother-in-law. In August 2016,
Circuitronix mailed letters to the two companies notifying them of the existence of
the Settlement Agreement and Kapoor’s obligation not to compete with
Circuitronix.
Kapoor filed a motion on September 9, 2016 arguing that the letters violated
the Settlement Agreement’s confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses and
4
Case: 17-14317 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 Page: 5 of 10
requesting that he be granted limited discovery to determine if Circuitronix had
sent any additional letters to third parties.1 In response, Circuitronix filed a cross-
motion, relying in large part on the Imaginasian website to allege that Kapoor was
breaching the Settlement Agreement by directly competing with Circuitronix
through Imaginasian, BMTM, and Koala Holdings.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing on December 8, 2016 to
address the motions. Much of the hearing was dedicated to determining how the
parties intended the term “line of business” to be interpreted, as it had been left
undefined in the Settlement Agreement. The remainder of the hearing focused on
the Imaginasian website, which Circuitronix argued clearly showed that Kapoor
had been competing with its line of business. In particular, the website
prominently displayed PCBs and PCBAs and advertised other metal parts and
manufacturing processes that Circuitronix claimed overlapped with its metal
business.
The district court ultimately issued an order on December 16 defining
Circuitronix’s “line of business” for purposes of the Settlement Agreement as
follows:
(1) printed circuit boards, including rigid, rigid-flex, flex and/or metal
clad; (2) plastic injection molded parts, including single shot, multi
shot, gas assist molding, foam molding, vertical molding,
1
The district court determined that the letters did not violate the Settlement Agreement, and its
decision in that respect has not been appealed.
5
Case: 17-14317 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 Page: 6 of 10
overmolding, and insert molding; (3) compression and injection
rubber parts, including silicone rubber keypads, gaskets, grommets,
and elastomer strips; (4) metal parts, including stamped sheet metal
parts, CNC sheet metal parts, die casting, extrusions, heatsinks, tool
and die manufacturing for plastic injection molded parts, printed
circuit boards, die casted parts, stamped parts, and cabinet locks; (5)
printed circuit board assembly, including through hole, SMT, BGA,
and COB; and (6) polymer thick film technology for different
laminate substrates, including CEM-1, FR4, CEM-3, FR2 and
ceramic.
The district court then allowed Circuitronix limited discovery going forward to
determine if Kapoor breached the Settlement Agreement by competing with
Circuitronix’s now-defined line of business. The court separately held that
Circuitronix would not be allowed to seek damages for any breach because of its
failure to meaningfully comply with conferral requirements under S.D. Fla. Local
Rule 7.1(a)(3) before filing its cross-motion.
The district court scheduled a final evidentiary hearing in order to fully
resolve the issues before it. That hearing took place on April 24 and April 26,
2017 and focused on Kapoor’s affiliation with Imaginasian India and a company
called Ei EMS India Private Limited, an entity formed on September 29, 2016 as a
joint venture and subsidiary of Imaginasian India and a company named EOS
Power India Private Limited—a supplier of Imaginasian India whose work
involves PCBs and PCBAs. Circuitronix claimed that Ei EMS competed with it by
manufacturing PCBs and distributing them to Ei EMS customers. Kapoor argued
that the PCBs manufactured at the Ei EMS site were made only to be used in
6
Case: 17-14317 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 Page: 7 of 10
“power supplies”—a product used in virtually all electronic equipment and not
included among Circuitronix’s line of business—which it then sold to its
customers.
As to the Imaginasian website, Kapoor testified that the references about the
company’s capabilities and services were mere “exaggerations” meant to obtain
better pricing from suppliers for the products that it made for BMTM—which did
not fall under the court’s definition of Circuitronix’s line of business—and that
Imaginasian did not actually sell or attempt to sell any product in competition with
Circuitronix.
The district court found, as a matter of fact, that Circuitronix had failed to
show that it was more likely than not that Kapoor had violated the non-compete
agreements contained in the Settlement Agreement. With regard to the website,
the court found that the “puffery and falsehoods” displayed on the site, without
more, were not sufficient to carry Circuitronix’s burden. As for Kapoor’s
involvement with Ei EMS, the court found that Circuitronix had not produced any
evidence showing that the company produced PCBs or PCBAs for any purpose
other than their inclusion in power supplies, the sale of which did not constitute
competition with Circuitronix, and that the manufacturing of PCBs and PCBAs
alone was “not enough to establish a breach of the Settlement Agreement.”
7
Case: 17-14317 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 Page: 8 of 10
Circuitronix appealed, arguing (1) that the district court misinterpreted the
word “compete,” which Circuitronix argues by its plain meaning should include
advertisements of the sort displayed on the Imaginasian website, and (2) that the
court clearly erred in finding that Kapoor’s involvement with Ei EMS did not
violate the Settlement Agreement. We address each issue in turn.
II
A
We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the word “compete.”
See Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 746 F.3d 1008, 1021 (11th Cir.
2014). When, as here, a term is left undefined, Florida law—which all parties
agree applies here—requires us to give the term its ordinary meaning. See Id. at
1022 (quoting Moore v. Stevens, 90 Fla. 879, 885 (1925)). Circuitronix argues
that the word “compete” is best defined as “[t]o strive consciously or
unconsciously for an objective (as position, profit, or a prize): be in a state of
rivalry.” A fair reading of the district court’s order, however, demonstrates that the
definition requested here by Circuitronix does not differ in any material way from
the one used by the district court. Indeed, the court seems to have applied the very
definition requested by Circuitronix, and simply found, as a factual matter, that
Circuitronix did not carry its burden of showing that it was more likely than not
that the advertisements on the Imaginasian website constituted “striving” for the
8
Case: 17-14317 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 Page: 9 of 10
sale of competitive products rather than mere puffery calculated to receive better
pricing from suppliers of non-competitive products. As the court interpreted the
term “compete” correctly, we review its factual finding that the websites did not
constitute improper competition for clear error, and will reverse only “if, after
viewing all of the evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.” Tartell v. S. Fla. Sinus and Allergy Ctr., Inc., 790
F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation omitted).
Here, the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. Kapoor
testified that the sole purpose of the advertisements on the website was to obtain
better pricing from suppliers of non-competitive products. Aside from the ads
themselves, Circuitronix was unable to produce any evidence that Kapoor even
attempted to sell any product in competition with Circuitronix’s defined line of
business. In light of the evidence presented at the hearing, the court did not clearly
err in finding that Circuitronix failed to show it more likely than not that Kapoor
was competing with any of Circuitronix’s defined lines of business. We will not
disturb the court’s decision here.
B
Circuitronix separately argues—albeit much more briefly—that the district
court clearly erred in finding that Kapoor’s involvement with Ei EMS did not
breach the Settlement Agreement. We disagree. While Circuitronix demonstrated
9
Case: 17-14317 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 Page: 10 of 10
that Ei EMS manufactured PCBs and PCBAs at its facility, it provided no
evidence—which was required to prove a breach—that Ei EMS also sold PCBs or
PCBAs as stand-alone products rather than as a component part of the power
supplies it sold. The court was free to credit Kapoor’s explanation that the
products were manufactured only for use in power supplies, a product that is not
included in Circuitronix’s line of business. We cannot say the court clearly erred. 2
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2
Circuitronix also appealed on the ground that the district court abused its discretion by refusing
to allow it to seek money damages after it failed to comply with the conferral requirements of
Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). Having determined the district court did not clearly err in making the
factual findings that underlay its determination that Kapoor did not breach the Settlement
Agreement, we need not decide if the district court abused its discretion in limiting
Circuitronix’s remedies.
10