081701P.pdf   07/28/2009  PFS Distribution Company  v.  Darrell Raduechel
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  08-1701
                          and No:  08-1789
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines   
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Wollman and Bye, Circuit Judges]
   Civil case. The district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion
   for a new trial on the claim that defendants, its former employees,
   breached their fiduciary duty when they sold chickens to plaintiff's
   customers, as the jury could have concluded that defendants' conduct did
   not proximately cause plaintiff to lose the customers' business; record
   contains sufficient evidence to support the jury findings that accounting
   defendants and banking defendants did not conspire with the former
   employees to breach their fiduciary duties or misappropriate plaintiff's
   trade secrets, and the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's
   motion for a new trial on the claim; jury instructions on the conspiracy
   claim were not erroneous; the evidence was sufficient to provide a
   reasonable basis for the jury to conclude the accounting and banking
   defendants did not know the employees' conduct was improper, and the
   district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for
   a new trial on its aiding and abetting claims against those defendants; jury
   instructions on aiding and abetting were not an abuse of discretion;
   challenge to expert testimony on the issue of aiding and abetting rejected;
   district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's request
   for equitable relief in the form of disgorgement of employees' salaries
   during the time they were allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties;
   district court did not err in ruling for plaintiff on defendant Raduechel's
   claim that he was improperly denied a bonus.