Teague v. Biotelemetry, Inc. et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying 78 Motion for Reconsideration. (tshlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRISTIAN TEAGUE,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-06527-TSH
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
BIOTELEMETRY, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 78

Defendants.

12
13

In 2016, Christian Teague sued BioTelemetry, Inc., VirtualScopics, Inc., and CardioCore

14

Lab, LLC (“Defendants”) alleging they denied him commissions he was entitled to, his

15

termination was pretextual, and for that matter, that Defendants lied to him when they first hired

16

him about how the commissions would work. Defendants subsequently filed a motion for

17

summary judgment on all of Teague’s claims. On October 25, 2018 the Court issued an order

18

granting the motion in part and denying it in part, allowing three of Teague’s claims to proceed: 1)

19

intentional interference with contractual relations (“IICR”), 2) breach of the implied covenant of

20

good faith and fair dealing, and 3) declaratory relief. ECF No. 68. Defendants now seek leave to

21

file a motion for reconsideration as to Teague’s IICR claim on the basis that the Court purportedly

22

failed to consider their argument that Teague cannot prove any damages. ECF No. 78.

23

Specifically, as to Teague’s fourth claim for IICR, Defendants argue he cannot establish

24

any damages “because his right to commissions ended when he was terminated and no Defendant

25

booked any revenue during his employment.” ECF No. 78 at 5. Defendants attempt to

26

demonstrate an internal inconsistency in the Court’s order by highlighting that the Court granted

27

summary judgment on the breach of contract claim because “no revenue was booked on new

28

imaging contracts during Teague’s term of employment,” and Defendants then argue no damages

1
2

could be proven under IICR either. Id. at 4; MSJ Order at 13.
That does not follow. Teague’s IICR claim is that “Biotelemetry funneled all of its
imaging contracts through VirtualScopics, frustrating performance of the commissions clause in

4

the employment agreement.” MSJ Order at 17-18. True, that by itself could not give rise to

5

damages because “none of the Defendants received revenue from a new imaging contract of the

6

type that would generate commissions for Teague before his termination.” Id. at 3 (emphasis

7

added). But Teague’s implied covenant claim, which also survived summary judgment, includes

8

the allegation “that CardioCore fired Teague to deny him a commission.” Id. at 21. If Teague

9

loses his implied covenant challenge to his termination, then he will not have damages under his

10

IICR claim. But if he proves that his termination violated the implied covenant, then it will be no

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

response to say, as Defendants do, that none of the Defendants booked relevant revenue by the

12

time of his termination because Teague will have proven he should not have been terminated. In

13

that event, if he can also prove that Biotelemetry improperly funneled its imaging contracts

14

through VirtualScopics, Teague’s IICR damages will be the commissions he should have been

15

paid for revenue that was booked after the termination that shouldn’t have happened.

16
17
18

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Defendants’ request for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: December 19, 2018

21
22
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2