ACI Worldwide Corp. v. BHMI, Inc. (15)

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

ACI Worldwide Corp. v. BHMI, Inc. (15)

Case Number
S-16-0358
Call Date
March 3, 2017
Court Number
Douglas
Case Summary

S-16-0358, ACI Worldwide Corp. (Appellant) v. BHM, Inc., Jack T. Baldwin, Lynne J. Baldwin, Michael E. Meeks, and John and Jane Does

Douglas County, Judge J. Russell Derr

Attorneys: Gregory C. Scaglione, Patrice D. Ott, John V. Matson (Koley Jessen PCLLO) and Eric J. Magnusun, Ryan W. Marth, Christopher P. Sullivan (all admitted pro hac vice) (Robins Kaplan LLP) (for Appellant) --- Michael F. Coyle, Timothy J. Thalken, Robert W. Futhey (Fraser Stryker PCLLO) (Appellees)

Civil: Misappropriation of trade secrets; breach of non-disclosure agreement; tortious interference with a business relationship.

Proceedings below: The bifurcated trial on ACI's claims from BHMI's counter claims resulted in a defense verdict. The case then proceeded on BHMI's counterclaims on which the jury returned verdicts in favor of BHMI for $43,806,362.70. BHMI was granted $2,732,962.50 in fees and $7,657.93 in costs. Both parties petitioned to bypass the Court of Appeals and such petitions were sustained by the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Issues: 1. The court erred in denying ACI's motions to dismiss BHMI's counterclaims and refusing to vacate the 2015 verdicts and associated judgment because:

a. the Noerr-Pennington doctrine precludes BHMI's antitrust and tortious

interference claims, and BHMI presented insufficient evidence to support those

claims;

b. BHMI presented insufficient evidence to support its breach of contract claim;

c. BHMI presented no cognizable evidence of damages to support any claim.

2. The court erred in denying ACI's motions to vacate the dismissal of ACI's claims and the associated 2014 verdict and judgment and to grant new discovery and trial on the basis of denied discovery. 3. Alternatively to assignment no. l, the court erred in refusing to vacate the 2015 verdict and associated judgment and in refusing to grant new discovery and trial on the basis of denied discovery and the exclusion of evidence in the 2015 trial. 4. The court abused its discretion in granting BHMI's application for attorneys' fees and costs.