UIdaho Law Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs 4-23-2015 Huber v. Lightforce USA, Inc. Respondent's Brief Dckt. 41887 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/ idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs Recommended Citation "Huber v. Lightforce USA, Inc. Respondent's Brief Dckt. 41887" (2015). Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs. 5293. https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs/5293 This Court Document is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO JEFFREY EDWARD HUBER, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, Supreme Court No. 41887-2014 vs. LIGHTFORCE USA, IN CORPORATED, a Washington corporation, doing business as NIGHTFORCE OPTICS, Defendant/Respondent. RESPONDENT'S REPLY BRIEF Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District of the State of Idaho in and for the County of Clearwater Honorable Michael J. Griffin, presiding Gerald T. Husch, ISB No. 2548 Jeff R. Sykes, ISB No. 5058 Andrea J. Rosholt, ISB No. 8895 Chad M. Nicholson, ISB No. 7506 MOFFATT, THOMAS, BARRETT, ROCK & MCCONNELL WAGNER SYKES & STACEY PLLC FIELDS, CHARTERED 755 W. Front St., Suite 200 101 S. Capitol Blvd., 10th Floor Boise, Idaho 83 702 Post Office Box 829 Telephone (208) 489-0100 Boise, Idaho 83701 Facsimile (208) 489-0110 Telephone (208) 345-2000 [email protected] Facsimile (208) 385-5384 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 13782.0253 Attorneys for Appellant Jeffrey E. Huber Attorneys for Respondent Lightforce USA, Incorporated FILED· PY APR 2 3 2015 Enlenld on ATS by Client:3771529.7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ......................................................................................... 1 A. Nature of the Case .................................................................................................. 1 B. The Course of Proceedings .................................................................................... 3 C. Additional Issues on Appeal .................................................................................. 3 D. Statement of the Facts ........................................................................................... 3 1. On October 9, 2000, Huber and Dennis sign the CSO (Ex. P-1) ........... 5 2. A workforce planning review reveals a lack of formal communication structure and Huber's micromanagement of departments ................................................................................................. 9 3. Huber fails to promote an open and transparent organization, hiding information that he did not feel reflected favorably on himself .......................................................................................................... 11 4. Huber lies to the Board, then continues to deceive the Board by directing senior staff to falsify records ................................................... 13 5. LFUSA creates the Operations Management Group (OMG).............. 17 6. Huber executes the NDA ......................................................................... 19 7. Huber's active employment duties end on August 2, 2011, and Huber is given 12 months' notice of termination with pay .................. 23 II. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 27 A. The District Court Correctly Held that the Amount Payable to Huber Pursuant to the NDA Was Not "Wages," as Defined by Idaho Code Section 45-601, and, Therefore, the $180,000 Judgment Awarded to Huber Should Not Be Trebled ............................................................................ 27 B. The District Court Did Not Err in Refusing to Award Huber Prejudgment Interest before August 1, 2013 .....................................................31 i Client:3771529.7 C. The District Court Correctly Held that the CSO Was a "Top Hat Plan" Under 29 U.S.C. § 1051(2) and Not Subject to ERISA's Vesting/ Anti-Forfeiture Provision (29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1061) or Funding Provision (29 U.S.C. §§ 1081-1086) Because It Was Not Funded ..................................... 32 D. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Holding that Huber's Right to Goodwill Under the CSO Was Subject to Forfeiture ........................................................ 37 E. The Trial Court Correctly Held that Huber's Benefits Under the CSO Were Forfeited ..................................................................................................... 39 F. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Concluding that Huber Failed to Adequately Plead a Cause of Action for Equitable Relief............................... .40 G. The Trial Court Correctly Held that LFUSA Was the Prevailing Party, Entitling LFUSA to an Award of Attorney Fees and Costs ............................. 41 H. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Denying Huber's Motion for Fees and Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 43 I. Huber's Claim for Attorney Fees on Appeal Should Be Denied, and LFUSA's Claim for Attorney Fees on Appeal Should Be Granted ................ .43 III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 44 ii Client:3771529.7 TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES Page Cases Atwood v. W Constr., Inc., 129 Idaho 234, 923 P.2d 479 (Ct. App. l 996) .................................. 41 Barmore v. Perrone, 145 Idaho 340, 179 P.3d 303 (2008) .......................................................... 30 Belka v. Rowe Furniture Corp., 571 F. Supp. 1249 (1983) .......................................................... 36 Belsky v. First Nat'! Life Ins. Co., 818 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1987) ................................................. 36 Benninger v. Derifield, 142 Idaho 486, 129 P.3d 1235 (2006) ............................................... 33, 40 Bigda v. Fischbach Corp., 898 F. Supp. 1004 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), ajf'd, 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 32, 38, 39, 44 Bryan v. Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack, CIV.A. 00-1525, 2001 WL 752645 (E.D. Pa. June 29, 2001) ............................................................................................................... 38 Burns v. Cnty. ofBoundary, 120 Idaho 623,818 P.2d 327 (Ct. App. 1990), ajf'd, 120 Idaho 614,818 P.2d 318 (1991) ............................................................................................. 41 Demery v. Extebank Deferred Comp. Plan, 216 F.3d 283 (2d Cir. 2000) .................................... 36 Dependahl v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 653 F.2d 1208 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 968, 102 S. Ct. 512, 70 L. Ed. 2d 384 (1981) ................................................................ 36 Edmondson v. Shearer Lumber Prods., 139 Idaho 172, 75 P.3d 733 (2003) ............................... 39 Epstein v. Unum Life Ins. Co. ofAm., CV 04-0400 SVW, 2004 WL 2418310 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2004) .............................................................................................................. 42 Estate ofShockley v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 130 F.3d 403 (9th Cir. 1997) .......................... 42 Feinstein v. St. Luke's Hark, CIV A, 10-4050, 2012 WL 4364641 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2012) .............................................................................................................. 42 Garner v. Povey, 151 Idaho 462, 259 P .3d 608 (2011) ................................................................ 41 Gilliam v. Nev. Power Co., 488 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2007) .......................................................... 31 Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242, 130 S. Ct. 2149 (2010) ........................ 42 Hollenbeck v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 605 F. Supp. 421 (E.D. Mo. 1984) ................................. 39 House v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., 499 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 2007) ................................................ 33 Howard v. Clyde Findlay Area Credit Union, Inc., 2013 WL 4784913 (N.D. Ohio 2013) ......... 38 In re Cheeks, 467 B.R. 136 (N.D. Ill. 2012) ........................................................................... 34, 35 In re IT Grp., Inc., 305 B.R. 402 .................................................................................................. 33 IT Grp., Inc. v. IT Litig. Trust, 448 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2006) ........................................................ 33 JR. Simplot Co. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 120 Idaho 849,820 P.2d 1206 (1991) .................. 42 John Hancockv. Harris Trust, 510 U.S. 86, 114 S. Ct. 517 (1993) ............................................. 35 Jorgensen v. Coppedge, 148 Idaho 536,224 P.3d 1125 (2010) ................................................... 41 iii Client:3771529.7 Liponis v. Bach, 149 Idaho 372,234 P.3d 696 (2010) ............................................................ 32, 40 Magic Lantern Prods., Inc. v. Do/sot, 126 Idaho 805,892 P.2d 480 (1995) ................................ 41 Miller v. Heller, 915 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ..................................................................... 34 Moore