BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC

Filing 103

MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that 73 75 Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation are overruled and the 66 Report and Recommendation is adopted as the Opinion of the Court, and 23 Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss P laintiff's First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) is granted and Counts II, III, and IV, as well as the demands in Count I for lost opportunity damages, disgorgement, and costs and attorney fees in 21 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are dismissed for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation. See Memorandum Order for further details. Signed by Judge W. Scott Hardy on 7/14/21. (lwp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL,
INC. d/b/a BEST NOMOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY
P.C.,
Defendant and
CounterclaimPlaintiff,
v.
BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL,
INC. d/b/a BEST NOMOS,
CounterclaimDefendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 20-1077
Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge/
District Judge W. Scott Hardy

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections (Docket Nos. 73, 75) to the
Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 66) (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge
entered in this case on March 15, 2021. The R&R recommends granting Defendant’s Partial
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 23) pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and dismissing Plaintiff’s claims for misrepresentation (Count II),
breach of fiduciary duty (Count III), and declaratory judgment (Count IV), as well as Plaintiff’s
demands for lost opportunity damages, disgorgement, and costs and attorney fees with respect to
1

its breach of contract claim (Count I). (Docket No. 66 at 13). Service of the R&R was made on
all parties. On March 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the R&R, to which Defendant
filed a response in opposition on April 12, 2021 (Docket No. 86). Plaintiff filed a reply in support
of its Objections on April 20, 2021 (Docket No. 95), and Defendant filed a sur-reply in opposition
on April 26, 2021 (Docket No. 98). Plaintiff objects to the recommendation that the Court dismiss
his breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count III), and asks the Court to modify the R&R by reinstating
that claim as well as the relief requested therein, including but not limited to equitable and punitive
damages as well as other relief applicable to the allegations of breach of fiduciary duty. According
to Plaintiff, Magistrate Judge Dodge erred in finding that its breach of fiduciary duty claim is
barred by the gist of the action doctrine because she failed to address averments that relate to
Defendant’s fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff that are separate and distinct from the agreement at
issue in this case and, additionally, that she erred in finding that Defendant’s tortious statements
were shielded by judicial privilege.
In resolving a party’s objections, the Court conducts a de novo review of any part of the
R&R that has been properly objected to. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
Court may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, as well as receive further
evidence or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. See id. Upon careful de
novo review of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss, the
parties’ briefs filed in connection with the motion, the R&R, Plaintiff’s Objections, Defendant’s
response in opposition, Plaintiff’s reply, and Defendant’s sur-reply, the Court concludes that the
Objections do not undermine the R&R’s recommended disposition. Accordingly, the Court enters
the following Order:
2

AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 2021,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R (Docket Nos. 73, 75)
are OVERRULED, and the R&R (Docket No. 66) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (Docket No. 23) is GRANTED, and Counts
II, III, and IV, as well as the demands in Count I for lost opportunity damages, disgorgement, and
costs and attorney fees, in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Docket No. 21) are DISMISSED for
the reasons set forth in the R&R.

/s/ W. Scott Hardy
W. Scott Hardy
United States District Judge
cc/ecf: All counsel of record.

3