In Case No. A05A0912, MAU, Inc. MAU appeals from the partial grant of summary judgment to Herbert Dew, a former vice president of MAU, on Count 4 of its complaint, which alleged breach of the duty of loyalty by Dew. Other former MAU employees John Knight, David Sewell, and Joni Baker were also named in Count 1 breach of noncompetition and nonsolicitation covenants and Count 5 tortious inducement by Human Technologies, Inc. HTI, Knight, Sewell, and Baker of Dew to leave MAU as to which summary judgment was also granted.1 HTI, a competing company formed by these former MAU employees, was dismissed as a party following the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on Counts 1, 4, and 5, because HTI was not a defendant in Counts 2, 3, and 6, as to which the trial court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In Case No. A05A0962, Dew, Knight, Sewell, and Baker cross-appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on Count 2 tortious interference with business contracts and relationships and Count 3 inducing MAU employees to discontinue employment of MAU’s complaint. Count 6 computer theft and trespass by the individual defendants remains pending below. To obtain summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, this Court applies a de novo standard of review and must draw all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. If, however, there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any essential element of plaintiff’s claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards. All of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial. Footnotes omitted. Jerry Dickerson Presents, Inc. v. Concert/Southern Chastain Promotions , 260 Ga. App. 316, 322 579 SE2d 761 2003. So viewed, the evidence was that MAU was a human resource and staffing service founded in 1973 and headquartered in Augusta, Georgia. Dew joined the company in 1985 and became one of its vice presidents in the early to mid 1990′s. As vice president, Dew was responsible for the professional services and office services divisions of MAU and he understood that, while employed by MAU, he owed it a duty not to use company time or his knowledge as an officer to advance a competing business. Dew signed a contract containing a noncompete clause, and the contracts signed by Baker, Knight and Sewell contained client/employee nonsolicitation clauses.2
MAU’s strategic planning, in which some of these four employees were involved, included seeking future growth in Greenwood, South Carolina.3 Dew began working on the strategic plan in late 1996, and was to contact Fuji and Kemet representatives in Greenwood in an effort to obtain outsourcing placements. In fact, Dew made calls to Fuji in 1996 and 1997 in an attempt to solicit business for MAU, but “you couldn’t get a call or a phone call back from them. . . . I really was frustrated with it. I didn’t have a relationship with anybody at Fuji, so it was a dead call.”
