HADEED et al v. ADVANCED VASCULAR RESOURCES OF JOHNSTOWN, LLC et al
Filing
147
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER - upon consideration of Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Johnstown Heart and Vascular Center, Inc. and Counter-Defendant Samir Hadeed, MD's Motions in Limine (ECF No. 119 ) and Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs AVR Management, LLC and Washington Vascular Institute, LLC's responses thereto, and for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion accompanying this Order, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Preclude/Limit the Introduction of Evidence and/or Testimony Relating to Monetary Damages is DENIED; 2. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Preclude the Introduction of Evidence and/or Testimony of Plaintiffs' Alleged Breaches of the Sublease and Amendment to Master Lease is DENIED; and 3. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Preclude the Introduction of Evidence and/or Testimony of Plaintiffs' Alleged Breaches of the Washington Vascular Institute Group Physician Agreement is DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, up on consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude the Report and Testimony of John W. (Jack) Teitz, the Court finds it necessary to hold a Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), hearing on whether the report and prop osed testimony of Mr. Teitz meet the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence. A Daubert hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion is scheduled for Monday, June 10, 2019 at 10 a.m. in Courtroom A, 319 Washington Street, Johnstown, PA 15901, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 4/24/2019. (dlg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SAMIR HADEED, MD, and
JOHNSTOWN HEART AND VASCULAR
CENTER, INC.,
)
)
)
No. 3:15-cv-22
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
~
)
)
ADVANCED VASCULAR RESOURCES
OF JOHNSTOWN, LLC; AVR
MANAGEMENT, LLC; WASHINGTON
VASCULAR INSTITUTE, LLC; and
MUBASHAR CHOUDRY, MD,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
I.
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Introduction
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Johnstown Heart and Vascular
Center, Inc. ("JHVC") and Counter-Defendant Samir Hadeed, MD's (collectively, "Plaintiffs")
Motions in Limine (ECF No. 119). These Motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for
disposition. (See ECF Nos. 120, 121, 122, 123, 128, 129, 130, 131.)
This case arises from disputes over the operation of a vascular services center located in
Johnstown, Pennsylvania. In short, Dr. Hadeed and JHVC entered into a series of contracts with
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs A VR Management, LLC (" AVR Management") and Washington
Vascular Institute, LLC ("WVI") (collectively, "Defendants") by which Plaintiffs would operate
the "medical side" of the vascular services center and Defendants would manage the "business
side" of the center. The present case arose because Plaintiffs and Defendants argue that the other
side failed to comply with the duties imposed by these contracts.
For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude/Limit the Introduction of
Evidence and/or Testimony Relating to Monetary Damages, Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude the
Introduction of Evidence and/or Testimony of Plaintiffs' Alleged Breach of the Sublease, and
Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude the Introduction of Evidence and/or Testimony of Plaintiffs'
Alleged Breach of the Washington Vascular Institute Group Physician Agreement are DENIED.
The Court will defer ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude the Report and Testimony of John
W. (Jack) Teitz until a Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), hearing is
held.
II.
Background 1
The present case arises from various disputes related to the operation of Advanced
Vascular Resources of Johnstown (" AVR-Johnstown"), 2 a limited liability company created to
operate and manage a vascular center in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 78 at 4.)
Advanced Vascular Resources, LLC (" A VR, LLC") 3 was formed by Mubashar Choudry,
MD to develop vascular facilities on a national level. (Id.) Dr. Hadeed and JHVC, the entity
through which Dr. Hadeed' s cardiovascular practice is conducted, reached an agreement with
AVR, LLC to open a vascular lab in Johnstown, which would become AYR-Johnstown. (Id.) To
foster the development and operation of vascular facilities across the country, Dr. Choudry also
formed AVR Management to oversee the management of A VR, LLC' s vascular labs and WVI to
This Background is an abbreviated version of the factual discussion in this Court's Memorandum Opinion
on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 78). Because the parties are familiar with the complicated factual
and procedural history of this case, the Court will not go into great detail here.
2 AYR-Johnstown is no longer a party to this action. (See ECF No. 100.)
3 A YR, LLC is not a party to the present action but is an owner of A YR-Johnstown and A YR Management.
(ECF No. 78 at 4 n.2.)
1
2
oversee the compensation for JHYC. (Id.) Numerous contracts were executed to govern the
relationships between the various parties. (Id. at 4-5.)
After opening, AYR-Johnstown was an immediate success.
(Id. at 5.)
However,
complications soon arose with cash flow, timely bill paying, insurance credentialing, and
employee salary and benefit payments. (Id. at 5-6.)
After encountering these problems, JHYC terminated some of the parties' agreements.
(Id. at 6-7.) Shortly thereafter, the parties' business relationship ended as a practical matter. (Id.)
Plaintiffs changed the locks on the vascular center premises and ran a profitable business at the
same physical location without Defendants' meaningful involvement. (Id.)
Plaintiffs then initiated this lawsuit on January 23, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) In essence, the
Complaint alleges severe mismanagement of AYR-Johnstown by Defendants. 4 (See id.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?