A Texas court has ruled on a dispute between Ryan Lunderby and Dominium Development and Acquisition, LLC, regarding the interpretation of an employment contract. The court denied both Lunderby’s motion for partial summary judgment and Dominium’s motion to construe the terms of the contract. This decision is significant for Lunderby, who is navigating his obligations under the employment agreement, and for Dominium, which seeks to enforce its terms.
The dispute centers on a clause in Lunderby’s 2025 Amended and Restated Employment Agreement that requires him to "relocate to Dallas." The court's ruling will impact Lunderby’s employment status and potentially set a precedent for how similar contractual obligations are interpreted in the future.
Background
Ryan Lunderby is the plaintiff in this case, while Dominium Development and Acquisition, LLC, is the defendant. The conflict arose from Lunderby’s employment agreement, which included a requirement for him to relocate to Dallas. This clause was present in both the 2021 and 2025 agreements between the parties.
According to the court documents, Lunderby moved to Southlake, Texas, a suburb of Dallas, in 2021. However, in May 2025, he purchased a home in Minnesota, leading to questions about whether he had breached the agreement by not maintaining a residence in the Dallas area. The case was brought to the Texas Business Court, where both parties sought clarity on the contract's terms.
The Ruling
On June 9, 2026, Judge Andrea K. Bouressa issued a memorandum opinion denying both parties' motions. The court ruled that the term "relocate to Dallas" was ambiguous and could not be interpreted as a matter of law. Judge Bouressa stated, "The Court finds that Lunderby’s relocation obligation constituted more than simply working in Dallas and existed for the duration of his employment at Dominium."
Furthermore, the court emphasized that while Lunderby had a contractual obligation to relocate, the specifics of what that entails remain unresolved. The ruling noted that the contract did not provide clear guidance on what constitutes a relocation, making it a question for a jury to decide. The judge concluded, "There are no objective criteria that conclusively establish whether a person has or has not relocated as a matter of law."
Impact
This ruling is significant for both Lunderby and Dominium as it leaves the interpretation of the relocation clause open to further examination. The court's decision to deny summary judgment means that the case will proceed to trial, where a jury will ultimately determine the meaning of the contractual terms. This outcome could affect how similar employment contracts are drafted in the future, particularly regarding relocation clauses.
Additionally, the court's ruling highlights the importance of clarity in contractual language. Employers and employees alike may need to reassess their agreements to avoid ambiguity that could lead to disputes. The case serves as a reminder that the specific terms of employment contracts can have substantial implications for both parties.
What's Next
The case is set to proceed to trial, where a jury will hear the evidence and make determinations regarding Lunderby’s compliance with his relocation obligations. There is also the possibility of an appeal depending on the trial's outcome and any subsequent rulings that may arise.