James E. Gernert, M.D., et al. v. Duane Hartleip, M.D., et al.
Published: Aug. 31, 1996 | Result Date: Jul. 16, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC126513 – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Arthur R. Chenen
(Theodora Oringher PC)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Tony Schiffe
(technical)
Gary Joffe
(technical)
Les Kornblatt
(technical)
Defendant
Jeffrey H. Kinrich
(technical)
Mark Weiss
(technical)
Facts
In August 1990, the defendant physician sold his urology medical practice to the plaintiff physician's corporation for approximately $395,000 pursuant to a written contract that contained a three-year covenant not to compete. Thereafter, the defendant selling physician worked for the plaintiff buying physician in the same office as an independent contractor physician, treating the same patients. In 1993, the three-year non-compete clause expired. The defendant selling physician continued to work for the buying physician as an independent contractor for an additional 1+ years, but at a greatly reduced compensation. He ultimately left the plaintiff buying physician's employ in March 1995. The defendant selling physician set up a new practice in the immediate vicinity of the old office and allegedly notified the patients that he had been treating of his new address. Thereafter, it is alleged that approximately 400 of the patients that the selling physician had been treating followed him to the new location. The plaintiffs, the buying physician and his professional corporation, brought this action against the defendants, the selling physician and his professional corporation, based on breach of written and oral contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, false promise, negligent misrepresentation, intentional interference, unfair competition and defamation theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs made no settlement demand, but the plaintiffs indicated they would take $500,000 to $600,000 to settle the case. The defendants made no settlement offers.
Injuries
The plaintiffs asked the jury for an award of $800,000 to $1,018,000 for breach of contract and unfair competition. The defendants asked the jury for a defense verdict on liability and on damages.
Result
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: A settlement conference was held on Dec. 14, 1995. It did not resolve the matter.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately one year and three months after the case was filed. The trial was bifurcated on liability and damages. The court nonsuited the plaintiff sell on his claim of slander and nonsuited his medical corporation on its claim of breach of a promise to retire. The court also ruled that the plaintiff had not plead a case for misappropriation of trade secrets, and precluded the plaintiff from referring to the information as trade secrets or confidential. The court found the contract to be ambiguous as to what the defendants obligations were in transitioning patients, and that issue went to the jury. At the conclusion of the liability phase, the jury found (9-3) that the defendants had breached the contract. However, at the conclusion of the damages phase, the jury found (9-3) that the plaintiffs had not suffered damage from this breach. The contract on which the plaintiffs sued contains an attorney's fee provision, but to date neither party has filed a motion for fees. POST TRIAL MOTIONS; Plaintiffs have moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, to vacate the judgment, for an additur and for a new trial. The plaintiffs have also indicated they will appeal if necessary.
Deliberation
2+ day (liability) 1 day (damages)
Poll
9-3 (breach of written contract), 11-1 (no fraud, false malice, intentional interference of unfair competition)
Length
15 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390