AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Southwest Preferred Financial, Inc. (Southwest) sued Jason Bowermeister, a former employee, and American West Gold Merchants, Inc., a company started by Bowermeister, for breaching a 2013 non-compete agreement and fiduciary duty of loyalty. Bowermeister was hired by Southwest in 2012 and signed a non-compete agreement in 2013 when his job duties and location were changed. He resigned in 2014, later forming American West, which competed with Southwest. Southwest alleged Bowermeister's actions, including purchasing a gold coin for personal use while employed, violated the non-compete agreement and his duty of loyalty (paras 3-10).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Southwest): Argued that Bowermeister breached the 2013 non-compete agreement and his fiduciary duty of loyalty by starting a competing business and engaging in self-dealing while employed by Southwest (para 1).
• Defendants-Appellees (Bowermeister and American West): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the 2013 non-compete agreement was enforceable under New Mexico law (para 15).
• Whether the district court erred in not considering the enforcement of a less restrictive 2012 non-compete agreement (para 21).
• Whether the district court erred in dismissing Southwest’s claim for breach of the duty of loyalty (para 25).

Disposition

• The district court's judgment dismissing all claims was affirmed (para 30).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Yohalem, concurred with the district court's findings that the 2013 non-compete agreement was unreasonably restrictive and not supported by consideration, and that Southwest failed to prove damages caused by Bowermeister's competition. The court also agreed that Southwest did not preserve its claim regarding the 2012 non-compete agreement for appeal and failed to demonstrate harm from Bowermeister's breach of duty of loyalty. The court emphasized that a non-compete agreement must be reasonable in scope, duration, and geography to be enforceable and that harm must be shown to claim a breach of fiduciary duty (paras 13-29).