The featured case is Apex Medical Research v. Arif (http://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2015cv02458/308072/52/0.pdf?ts=1447939471)
A medical clinical trials firm sued a doctor and his company for breach of contract and some tort claims when the firm learned the doctor was soliciting firm clients in violation of a noncompete signed by him.
In partially granting and denying a flurry of summary judgment motions, the Illinois Northern District highlights the importance of Local Rule 56 statements and responses in summary judgment practice. Substantively, the court provides detailed discussion of the key factors governing whether a business arrangement is a joint venture and what obligations flow from such a finding.
The clinical trials agreement contemplated that plaintiff would locate medical trial opportunities and then provide them to the doctor defendant. The doctor would then conduct the trials in exchange for a percentage of the revenue generated by them. The plaintiff sued when the parties’ relationship soured.
Procedurally, the court emphasized the key rules governing Local Rule 56 (“LR 56”) statements and responses in summary judgment practice:
– LR 56 is designed to aid the trial court in determining whether a trial is necessary; Its purpose is to identify relevant admissible evidence supporting the material facts. LR 56 is not a vehicle for factual or legal arguments;
– LR 56 requires the moving party to provide a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue;
– The non-moving party must then file a response to each numbered paragraph of the movant’s statement of facts and if it disagrees with any statement of fact, the non-movant must make specific reference to the affidavits and case record that supports the denial;
– A failure to cite to the record in support of a factual denial may be disregarded by the court;
– The non-movant may also submit its own statement of additional facts that require denial of the summary judgment motion;
– Where a non-movant makes evasive denials or claims insufficient knowledge to answer a moving party’s factual statement, the court will deem the fact admitted.
(**2-3)
The court focused its substantive legal analysis on whether the individual defendant owed fiduciary duties to the plaintiff. Under Illinois law, a joint venturer owes fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith to his other joint venturer. So too does a shareholder in a close corporation (a corporation where stock is held in the hands of only a few people or family members) – but only if that shareholder is able to influence corporate policy and management.
The hallmarks of an Illinois joint venture are: (1) an express or implied association of two or more persons to carry out a single enterprise for profit; (2) a manifested intent by the parties to be joint venturers; (3) a community of interest (i.e. joint contribution of property, money, effort, skill or knowledge); and (4) a measure of joint control and management of the enterprise. (*16).
The most important joint venture element is the joint control (item (4)) aspect. Here, there were provisions of the parties’ written contract that reflected equal control and management of the clinical trials arrangement but other contract terms reflected the opposite – that the plaintiff could supervise the doctor defendant. These conflicts in the evidence showed there was a genuine factual dispute on whether the parties jointly controlled and managed the trial venture.
The evidence was also murky as to whether the doctor defendant had enough control over the corporate plaintiff to subject the doctor to fiduciary obligations as a close corporation shareholder. The conflicting evidence led the court to deny summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claim. (**16-17).
Afterwords:
Procedurally, the case presents a thorough summary of the key rules governing summary judgment practice in Illinois Federal courts. The party opposing summary judgment must explicitly cite to the case record for its denial of a given stated fact to be recognized by the court.
The case also provides useful substantive law discussion of the key factors governing the existence of a joint venture and whether a close corporation’s shareholder owes fiduciary duties to the other stockholders of that corporation.
