Charter Practices International, LLC et al v. Robb

Filing 372

RULING AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 357 Motion for Reconsideration and denying 371 Motion for leave to amend. The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Donna F. Martinez for further proceedings on the amount of the plaintiffs' claim for operating losses during the step-in period and Dr. Robb's claim for $57,000. See attached Ruling and Order for details. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 8/7/2018. (Chenoweth, T.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CHARTER PRACTICES INT’L, LLC
and MED. MGMT. INT’L, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN M. ROBB,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:12-cv-1768 (RNC)

RULING AND ORDER
Dr. Robb moves for reconsideration of the judgment awarding
damages to plaintiffs for operating losses during the step-in
period ($99,541.00) and revaccination costs ($49,148.52) on the
grounds that he has not had an opportunity to contest the amount
of the operating losses, he should not have to pay for any
revaccinations, and he is entitled to an offset in the amount of
$57,000, representing his share of the operating profits for the
month of November 2012, which the plaintiffs have refused to pay.
Plaintiffs respond that Dr. Robb had ample opportunity to contest
their claims for operating losses; the revaccination costs were
reasonably incurred in order to comply with state law; and Dr.
Robb’s claim for an offset is untimely and unsupported by
anything except his conclusory affidavit.
Treating the motion for reconsideration of the judgment as a
motion for relief from the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(1), the motion is granted in part as follows:
(1) The amount awarded to the plaintiffs based on the net

loss of operating the Hospital during the step-in period
($99,541.00) is set aside.

Crediting the representations of Dr.

Robb’s counsel, he did not object to the amount claimed because
he believed it would be the subject of a trial.

Assuming Dr.

Robb had an obligation to object to the plaintiffs’ statement of
damages (ECF No. 354), as they contend, I find his failure to
object excusable in light of his counsel’s explanation.1
(2) The grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs on Dr.
Robb’s claim for $57,000 is set aside.

In his counterclaims, Dr.

Robb adequately alleged that he is owed $57,000 for his share of
the operating profits for November 2012.

Magistrate Judge

Martinez referred to this claim in her recommended ruling denying
the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the counterclaims.
No. 250 at 6).

(See ECF

The parties’ summary judgment briefs did not

focus on this claim and I overlooked it in preparing my ruling.
Accordingly, the claim should not have been dismissed on summary
judgment.
In all other respects, the motion is denied.

In particular,

Dr. Robb’s request for relief from the award of vaccination costs
is denied.

Unlike Dr. Robb’s objection to the award of damages

1

Plaintiffs correctly point out that the amount of the
operating loss they claim is substantiated by business records
and Dr. Robb has yet to offer any evidence that the amount is
overstated. Even so, the amount set forth in the judgment was
entered in error in the mistaken belief that there was no
objection. Whether Dr. Robb can raise a triable issue as to the
amount remains to be seen.
2

for operating losses, Dr. Robb does not object to the amount of
the revaccination costs; he denies owing any amount on the theory
that any revaccinations were needless.

Dr. Robb is not entitled

to relitigate the issue of the efficacy of partial doses of
vaccine, and the plaintiffs acted reasonably in complying with
the dictates of state law.
Finally, Dr. Robb moves for leave to amend his motion for
reconsideration so that he has time to appeal my Ruling and
Order.

(ECF No. 371).

His motion is denied.

The time for

filing a notice of appeal is tolled during the pendency of a
motion for reconsideration.

See Weitzner v. Cynosure, 802 F.3d

307, 309 (2d Cir. 2015); Chopra v. General Elec. Co., 527 F.
Supp. 2d 230, 240 (D. Conn. 2007) (quoting Weyant v. Okst, 198
F.3d 311 (2d Cir. 1999)).

Therefore, amending the motion for

reconsideration is not necessary; the defendant still has an
opportunity to file a notice of appeal.
The case is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Martinez for
further proceedings on the amount of the plaintiffs’ claim for
operating losses during the step-in period and Dr. Robb’s claim
for $57,000.
So ordered this 7th day of August 2018.
/s/RNC
Robert N. Chatigny, U.S.D.J.

3