United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 8, 2006
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30675
JAMES HAROLD MOORE, JR., AND
JIM MOORE INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
VERSUS
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.,
STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
STATE FARM MUTUAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and
STATE FARM MUTUAL FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
2:03-CV-2390
Before JONES, Chief Judge and DAVIS and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
State Farm filed this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. §
1292 challenging as an improvidently issued injunction the order
entered by the district court in this dispute between State Farm and
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
its former agent, James Harold Moore, Jr. and the Jim Moore
Insurance Agency, Inc. (Moore).
As part of the dispute between State Farm and its former agent,
Moore, Moore filed a motion for injunctive relief seeking a
preliminary injunction against State Farm on a variety of issues.
The court denied Moore’s application for an injunction except as to
relief sought under paragraphs (A) and (C) of the motion.
Paragraph A sought to prohibit State Farm from interfering “.
. . in the right of Moore and/or Moore Agency to conduct insurance
agency business as licensed insurance agents in the State of
Louisiana.” Because State Farm did not challenge the relief
requested under this paragraph in the district court, any error
claimed in relation to the injunction under Paragraph A was not
preserved and the district court’s order on this point is affirmed.
Consequently the issue on appeal narrows to the propriety of
the district court’s order “granting in part” part C of Moore’s
motion for injunctive relief. Paragraph C sought to prohibit State
Farm from “restraining . . . the use by individual customers of
their name, address, or policy information which State Farm contends
is ‘trade secrets’ that have been released to third parties, . . .
and are therefore no longer subject to any claim of trade secrecy.”
The only relief Moore sought under paragraph C was to prohibit State
Farm from restraining the use by individual customers of their own
policy information.
2
In ruling on this request, the court made several statements
and issued orders, the effect of which are not entirely clear.
First, the district court concluded that “the names, addresses and
general policy information of State Farm’s insureds belong to the
insureds. Each insured may disclose that information at will, and
to anyone for any purpose.” To the extent this statement in the
district court’s ruling grants injunctive relief prohibiting State
Farm from interfering with the insureds’ use of their own
information, questions arise as to Moore’s standing to seek the
requested injunction that affects not him, but the individual
insureds who are not parties to this litigation.
The court then turned to a discussion of Moore’s contention
that the policy information was not a trade secret. The court
concluded that because State Farm released the information to
multiple sources and the policy information is available in many
public records, the policy information was not a trade secret. The
district court’s order does not explain why a finding that
policyholder information is not a trade secret of State Farm is
relevant to the requested injunction that relates only to the use
by individuals of their own “name, address, or policy information.”
The thrust of State Farm’s argument was that Moore could not use the
policy information he collected on State Farm customers because this
information was a trade secret.
Relatedly, the district court explicitly elected not to
“address plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief prohibiting State
3
Farm from enforcing the contractual provisions that prohibit
plaintiffs from using that [policy] information to solicit business
from State Farm’s insureds . . . . That is an issue of contract
interpretation for which plaintiffs have a monetary remedy, and for
which injunctive relief is not appropriate. The issue must be
referred to a trial on the merits of the claim.” This portion of
the order is not responsive to the request made by Moore in
Paragraph C to prohibit State Farm from interfering with the
insured’s use of their own policy information. In any event it
grants no injunctive relief to Moore. According to Black’s Law
Dictionary, 5th Edition, an injunction is a “prohibitive, equitable
remedy . . . forbidding [a party] to do some act . . . which he is
threatening or attempting to commit, or restraining him in the
continuance thereof, such act being unjust and inequitable,
injurious to the plaintiff, and not such as can be adequately
redressed by an action at law.” The only basis for our jurisdiction
over this appeal by State Farm of the district court’s interlocutory
orders is 28 U.S.C. § 1292, which applies only to orders “granting,
continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or
refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions.” Accordingly, to
the extent that State Farm challenges the injunction issued by the
district court under Paragraph A of Moore’s Motion for Injunction,
we affirm that portion of the district court’s order because State
Farm failed to preserve the error by raising an objection in the
district court.
4
We vacate the district court’s order in response to Moore’s
Motion for Injunction as to Paragraph C and remand this case to the
district court to clarify its order and specify what, if any action
State Farm must take or refrain from taking with respect to
interfering with the insured’s use of their own policy information.
If the court intended to enjoin State Farm from such interference
as requested by Moore, the district court should consider whether
Moore has standing to make the request on behalf of the insureds.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, REMANDED.
5