Wilson v. UTC Laboratories LLC et al
Filing
56
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER adopting 50 Report and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part 23 Motion for Summary Judgment; and, granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 6/6/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UTC LABORATORIES, L.L.C., d/b/a
)
RENAISSANCE RX; SYNTACTX LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
SCOTT A. WILSON,
C.A. No. 15-101 S
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
I. Introduction
Before the Court are Motions for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendant
Syntactx,
LLC
(ECF
No.
20)
and
Defendant
UTC
Laboratories, L.L.C., d/b/a Renaissance RX (“Renaissance”) (ECF
No. 23). These motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Lincoln
D. Almond for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
grant
Magistrate
Defendant
Judge
Syntactx
Almond
LLC’s
recommends
Motion
for
that
Summary
the
Court
Judgment.
(R&R, ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff was required to file any objection
to that recommendation within fourteen days. (Id. at 14 (citing
DRI LR Cv 72).) Having heard no objection from Plaintiff, that
portion of Magistrate Judge Almond’s recommendation (ECF No. 50)
is ACCEPTED, and Defendant Syntactx LLC’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED. See United States v. ValenciaCopete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986).
That
leaves
Defendant
Renaissance’s
Motion
for
Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 23). Magistrate Judge Almond recommends that
the Court grant Renaissance’s Motion with respect to Counts I,
II, III, and V, but denied with respect to Count IV. Once again,
having
heard
no
objection
from
Plaintiff,
Magistrate
Judge
Almond’s recommendation is ACCEPTED, and Defendant Renaissance’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED with respect
to
Counts
I,
II,
III,
and
V.
However,
because
Defendant
Renaissance objects to Magistrate Judge Almond’s recommendation
that
summary
judgment
be
denied
with
respect
to
Count
IV
(Renaissance Obj. to R&R, ECF No. 53), the Court reviews that
issue de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
II. Count IV
Renaissance is a medical research company that was involved
in a series of clinical-research trials collectively known as
the “Diagnosing Adverse Drug Reactions” (“DART”) study. (Compl.
¶¶ 26-29, ECF No. 1-1.) Plaintiff Dr. Scott Wilson agreed to
participate in the DART study. However, Plaintiff claims that he
agreed
only
rejected
Principal
to
act
as
Renaissance’s
Investigator”
a
“Sub-Investigator”
request
that
(“RPI”).
he
act
(Id.
¶¶
and
as
specifically
a
38-42,
“Regional
58-60.)
According to the Complaint, despite Plaintiff’s refusal to act
2
as an RPI, Renaissance listed Plaintiff as an RPI and held him
out as responsible for the oversight of various sites that were
participating in the DART Study. (Id. ¶¶ 58-60.) Under Count IV,
Plaintiff alleges that Renaissance, in holding Plaintiff out as
an RPI, misappropriated his name and credentials in violation of
R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 9-1-28.1(a)(2). (Id. ¶¶ 78-84.) 1
In
its
Renaissance
Objection
provides
to
two
the
Report
arguments
for
and
why
Recommendation,
summary
judgment
should be granted in its favor as to Count IV. Renaissance first
argues that Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of
damages.
Problematically,
however,
Renaissance
did
not
raise
this issue before Magistrate Judge Almond. (See Renaissance’s
Mem.
in
Support
of
Mot.
for
Summ.
J.
12-14,
ECF
No.
23-1;
Renaissance’s Suppl. Mem. in Support of Mot. for Summ. J. 7-8,
ECF No. 49.) As was noted in the Report and Recommendation,
Renaissance’s
argument
for
summary
judgment
on
Count
IV
was
based “solely on its position that Plaintiff agreed or consented
to act as an RPI.” (R&R 12, ECF No. 50.) The issue of whether
Plaintiff
has
provided
sufficient
evidence
as
to
damages
is
therefore waived for the purposes of Renaissance’s Motion for
1
The Complaint, under Count IV, did not cite a specific
subsection of R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-28.1. (See Compl. ¶ 83, ECF
No. 1-1.) Plaintiff has since made clear that Count IV is
brought pursuant to subsection (a)(2). (See Pl.’s Mem. in Opp.
to Obj. to R&R 5, ECF No. 55.)
3
Summary Judgment. See Curet-Velazquez v. ACEMLA de Puerto Rico,
Inc., 656 F.3d 47, 54 (1st Cir. 2011); Borden v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1987).
What remains of Renaissance’s Objection is its assertion
that Plaintiff consented to act as an RPI. As evidence for this
claim, Renaissance asks that the Court focus its attention on
the “Investigator Site Questionnaire” provided by Syntactx LLC.
(See Syntactx LLC’s Statement of Material Facts not in Dispute
(“Syntactx LLC’s SUMF”) Ex. A, Investigator Site Questionnaire
(“Questionnaire”), ECF No. 21-1.) According to Renaissance, that
document was “electronically signed” by Plaintiff and provided
Renaissance
permission
to
list
Plaintiff
as
an
RPI.
(Renaissance’s Statement of Material Facts not in Dispute ¶ 5,
ECF No. 24.)
Notably,
however,
the
Questionnaire
only
has
Plaintiff’s
typed name (not a written signature), and Plaintiff claims to
have “no recollection of completion, review or return” of the
Questionnaire. (Pl.’s Statement of Disputed Facts ¶ 5, ECF No.
34.)
Moreover,
the
Questionnaire
is
directly
contradicted
by
another piece of evidence - the “Clinical Trial Agreement” which
specifically
Investigator,”
Clinical
Trial
Agreement
is
not
labels
an
RPI.
Agreement
dated
Plaintiff
(See
Syntactx
(“Agreement”),
January
31,
4
as
2014,
a
LLC’s
ECF
just
No.
ten
“Principal
SUMF
Ex.
21-5.)
days
E,
That
after
Plaintiff allegedly “electronically signed” the Questionnaire,
and the Agreement, unlike the Questionnaire, bears the written
signatures of both Plaintiff and Renaissance’s Chief Operating
Officer. (See id. at 7.) Under these circumstances, the Court
agrees with Magistrate Judge Almond that “there is a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether or not [Plaintiff] ever
knowingly consented or agreed to serve” as an RPI. (R&R 12, ECF
No. 50.)
III. Conclusion
Magistrate
Judge
Almond’s
Report
and
Recommendation
(ECF
No. 50) is ACCEPTED. Defendant Syntactx LLC’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED, and Defendant Renaissance’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED with respect
to Counts I, II, III, and V, but DENIED with respect to Count
IV.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: June 6, 2017
5
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?