“While a corporate employer's relationship may not precisely fit 15 within one of these [Taylor] categories, the categories are not constitutionally rigid.”
How later courts described this case
- “While a corporate employer's relationship may not precisely fit 15 within one of these [Taylor] categories, the categories are not constitutionally rigid.”
- privity 27 established because “it is undisputed that Gottheiner owned all the outstanding shares of CCHCS stock and exercised control over its day to day affairs.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12 MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE Case No.: 19cv1865-GPC(LL)
SYSTEMS, INC., a California
13
corporation, MEDIMPACT ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
14 INTERNATINAL LLC, a California DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
limited liability company, MEDIMPACT MOTION FOR
15
INTERNATIONAL HONG KONG LTD., RECONSIDERATION
16 a Hong Kong company,
[Dkt. No. 198.]
17 Plaintiff,
18 v.
19 IQVIA INC., a Connecticut corporation;
IQIA Ltd., a UK company; IQVIA AG, a
20
Swiss company, OMAR GHOSHEH,
21 individually, and AMIT SADANA,
individually,
22
Defendant.
23
24
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order,
25
(Dkt. No. 195), denying their motion for partial summary judgment on certain allegations
26
under claim and issue preclusion. (Dkt. No. 198.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on April
27
16, 2021. (Dkt. No. 209.) Defendants replied on April 30, 2021. (Dkt. No. 214.) Based
28
1 on the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’
2 motion for reconsideration.
3 Background1
4 On April 7, 2020, Plaintiffs Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. (“MHSI”),
5 Medimpact International LLC (“MIL”), and MedImpact International Hong Kong Ltd.
6 (“MI-HK”) (collectively “Plaintiffs” or “MedImpact”) filed the operative first amended
7 complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants IQVIA Inc., IQVIA Ltd., IQVIA AG, Omar
8 Ghosheh (“Dr. Ghosheh”) and Amit Sadana (“Mr. Sadana”) (collectively “Defendants”).
9 (Dkt. No. 93.) The remaining claims in the FAC are the first cause of action for breach
10 of fiduciary duty, seventh cause of action for conspiracy as to Dr. Ghosheh and Mr.
11 Sadana, eighth cause of action for misappropriation of trade secret under Defend Trade
12 Secrets Act (“DTSA”), the ninth cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets
13 under California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) and tenth cause of action for
14 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) violations. (Dkt. No.
15 130.)
16 Prior to the litigation in this case, on January 23, 2018, Plaintiffs MIL and MI-HK
17 filed claims in arbitration against non-party Dimensions Healthcare LLC (“Dimensions”)
18 with the Dubai International Financial Centre-London Court of International Arbitration
19 (“DIFC-LCIA”) pursuant to the terms of the parties’ Joint Venture Agreement (“JVA”)
20 and Services and License Contract (“SLC”). (Dkt. No. 170-5, Bennett Decl. Ex. A.) On
21 April 16, 2019, the Arbitrator made a number of legal and factual findings in an order
22 entitled Partial Final Award on Liability. (Id. at 2-78.2) On July 24, 2019, the Arbitrator
23 issued another order on damages entitled Final Award. (Dkt. No. 170-6, Bennett Decl.,
24 Ex. B.)
25
26
27 1 The facts alleged in the FAC are provided in more detail in the Court’s order filed on August 27, 2020.
(Dkt. No. 130.)
28
1 On September 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants, who were
2 not named in the international arbitration, but are corporate affiliates of Dimensions that
3 were allegedly engaged in conduct arising from the facts in the underlying Arbitration.
4 Defendants, who were not parties in the underlying arbitration, moved for partial
5 summary judgment asking the Court to dismiss certain claims or allegations that were
6 ruled upon in their favor by the Arbitrator based on the doctrines of claim and issue
7 preclusion. (Dkt. No. 144.) On March 2, 2021, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for
8 partial summary judgment on issue and claim preclusions because they failed to provide
9 relevant legal and factual support to demonstrate privity between Dimensions and IQVIA
10 AG, IQVIA Inc. and IQVIA Ltd., and between Dimensions and Defendants Dr. Ghosheh
11 and Mr. Sadana. (Dkt. No. 195 at 7-12.)
12 In their motion for reconsideration, Defendants now present additional evidence to
13 support their argument that there is privity between Dimension and Defendants.
14 Defendants do not dispute that this evidence was available prior to filing their motion for
15 partial summary judgment but claim they can bring a reconsideration motion because
16 they present “different facts and circumstances” that “were not shown” in the prior
17 motion under Civil Local Rule 7.1(i). Plaintiffs, relying on Federal Rules of Civil
18 Procedure (“Rule”) 59 and 60, argue that a motion for reconsideration may not be
19 brought because Defendants’ evidence is not “newly discovered.”
20 Discussion
21 A. Legal Standard on Motion for Reconsideration
22 The court has “inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter or revoke [a prior non-final
23 order].” United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000). “The authority of
24 district courts to reconsider their own orders before they become final, absent some
25 applicable rule or statute to the contrary, allows them to correct not only simple mistakes,
26 but also decisions based on shifting precedent, rather than waiting for the time-
27 consuming, costly process of appeal.” Id. It is to be noted that Rule 60(b) and Rule 59(e)
28
1 do not apply to non-final appealable orders. Id. at 1048 n. 8 (“Rule 60(b), like Rule
2 59(e), applies only to motions attacking final, appealable orders”).
3 Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)(1) provides that a motion for reconsideration must include:
4 (1) when and to what judge the application was made, (2) what ruling or
decision or order was made thereon, and (3) what new and different facts
5
and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not
6 shown upon such prior application.
7
Local Civ. R. 7.1(i)(1). The Local Rule allows facts not shown in a prior application to
8
be considered in a motion for reconsideration. Id. Moreover, allowing reconsideration
9
“furthers the policy favoring judicial economy.” See United States v. Jones, 608 F.2d
10
386, 390 n. 2. (9th Cir. 1979).
11
In this case, because the order denying partial summary judgment order is a non-
12
final interlocutory order, Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b), which requires a showing of “newly
13
discovered evidence” do not apply, and the Court may consider Defendants’ evidence
14
even though they are not “newly discovered.” See Martin, 226 F3d at 1049.
15
B. Analysis
16
As discussed in the Court’s prior order, binding United States Supreme Court
17
precedent on the issue of privity noted the “general rule that ‘one is not bound by a
18
judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which
19
he has not been made a party by service of process.’” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880,
20
893 (2008). In Taylor, the Court enumerated six categories of exceptions to the general
21
rule where (1) the nonparty agreed to be bound by the determinations in the prior case;
22
(2) the nonparty has a “pre-existing ‘substantive legal relationship[s]’” with the party
23
bound by the judgment; (3) the nonparty was adequately represented in the first action by
24
someone with the same interests (i.e. class actions and suits brought by trustees,
25
guardians or other fiduciaries); (4) the nonparty “’assume[d] control’ over the litigation in
26
which that judgment was rendered”; (5) a party to the previous litigation was a
27
28
1 “designated representative” or proxy of the nonparty; and (6) the nonparty is barred by a
2 special statutory scheme from relitigating an issue already adjudicated. Id. at 893-95.
3 In the reconsideration motion, Defendants argue the second Taylor exception
4 applies to parent corporations and their closely held subsidiaries. (Dkt. No. 198-1 at 12.)
5 Plaintiffs argue that the second Taylor exception does not apply because it applies to
6 property relationships and not parent/subsidiary relationships and the evidence provided
7 by Defendants is “objectionable” and without foundation. (Dkt. No. 209 at 12, 18.)
8 Although a corporation and its subsidiaries is not among the list of “substantive
9 legal relationship[s]” noted by the Supreme Court, Taylor, 533 U.S. at 894 (“[q]ualifying
10 relationships include, but are not limited to, preceding and succeeding owners of
11 property, bailee and bailor, and assignee and assignor” citing 2 Restatement §§ 43-44, 52,
12 55) (emphasis added), the Court did not limit the “substantive legal relationship”
13 exceptions to the ones they listed. See id.; Ludwig v. Township of Van Buren, 682 F.3d
14 457, 462 (6th Cir. 2012) (“While a corporate employer's relationship may not precisely fit
15 within one of these [Taylor] categories, the categories are not constitutionally rigid.”).
16 Post-Taylor, courts have applied the second exception to parent and wholly owned
17 subsidiary defendants. See Agha–Khan v. United States, CASE NO. 1:1–CV–00042–
18 AWI, 2015 WL 5734380, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2015) (“second and third [Taylor]
19 category applies to parent and subsidiary defendants”), aff’d, 683 F. App’x 628 (9th Cir.
20 2017); Zendel v. Circle Location Servs., Inc., Case No.: CV 11-7963 SJO (CWx,), 2012
21 WL 12877182, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2012) (“The Court agrees that privity exists
22 between a parent corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary.”) (citing Lake at Las
23 Vegas Investors Grp., Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 728 (9th Cir. 1991);
24 see also Pickman v. Am. Express Co., No. 11-CV-05326, 2012 WL 258842, at *5 (N.D.
25 Cal. Jan. 27, 2012)).
26 On reconsideration, Defendants have provided evidence to support a preexisting
27 substantive legal relationship between Dimensions, and IQVIA AG and IQVIA Inc.
28 Plaintiffs respond generally that Defendants’ evidence lacks foundation but provide no
1 specific reasons. IQVIA AG is the controlling beneficial owner of non-party
2 Dimensions3 and has the exclusive power to control the operations of Dimensions. (Dkt.
3 No. 198-2, Shanti Decl. ¶¶ 2, 12; Dkt. No. 217, Shanti Decl. ¶¶ 4-11, 13-17 (UNDER
4 SEAL).) In turn, IQVIA AG is a wholly owned subsidiary of IQVIA Inc. (Dkt. No. 198-
5 3, Ashman Decl. ¶ 12; Dkt. No. 217, Ashman Decl. ¶¶ 13-15 (UNDER SEAL).)
6 Therefore, Defendants have established a substantial legal relationship between
7 Dimensions, a subsidiary, and Defendants IQVIA AG and IQVIA Inc., its parent
8 corporations.
9 However, Defendants have not provided legal authority that IQVIA Ltd. has a
10 substantive legal relationship with Dimensions. While Plaintiffs do not dispute this
11 claim, courts have “an independent duty to research and properly apply the law.” Baylon
12 v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 303 F. Supp. 3d 1160, 1165 (D.N.M. 2018); Does v. Wasden,
13 982 F.3d 784, 793 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[I]t is a longstanding principle that ‘when an issue or
14 claim is properly before the court, the court is not limited to the particular legal theories
15 advanced by the parties, but rather retains the independent power to identify and apply
16 the proper construction of governing law.’”).
17 As to IQVIA Ltd., Defendants simply argue that IQVIA AG and IQVIA Ltd. are
18 closely held by their common parent, IQVIA Inc. Yet, there is no evidence presented that
19 directly link Dimensions and IQVIA Ltd. to establish a substantial legal relationship for
20 purposes of privity between them. In fact, the Court noted in the prior order that
21 Defendants did not explain whether separate subsidiaries, in this case IQVIA AG and
22 IQVIA Ltd., of one parent corporation, IQVIA Inc. can have a substantial legal
23 relationship with each other so that IQVIA AG’s control and ownership over Dimensions
24 can be attributed to IQVIA Ltd. (Dkt. No. 195 at 12.) Accordingly, the Court concludes
25 Defendants have not demonstrated privity between Dimensions and IQVIA Ltd.
26
27
3 Dimensions is a limited liability company registered and incorporated in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi in
28
1 Finally, as the Defendants Mr. Sadana and Dr. Ghosheh, Defendants have not
2 provided any legal authority to support a substantial legal relationship between them and
3 Dimensions. Implicitly, Defendants appear to argue that because Dr. Ghosheh and Mr.
4 Sadana controlled the affairs of Dimensions, privity must be established. However, they
5 cite no legal authority to support privity between a Board member, officer, or employee
6 and the corporation.4
7 Defendants assert that Mr. Sadana is Senior Vice President & General Manger at
8 IQVIA AG overseeing Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. (Dkt. No. 198-2, Shanti
9 Decl. ¶ 18.) He is also on the board of Dimensions and has control over its operations.
10 (Id. ¶¶ 19-23.) Dimensions reports directly to Mr. Sadana and he attends weekly business
11 development meeting and receives regular reports on commercial, financial, and
12 administrative matters from the relevant Dimensions department heads. (Id. ¶ 19.) Dr.
13 Ghosheh founded Dimensions, served as General Manager (or CEO) of Dimensions until
14 his retirement in December 2019, and was on the board of Dimensions until his
15 retirement and had control over the operations of Dimensions. (Id. ¶¶ 24-28.)
16 The Court notes that section 59 of the Restatement Second of Judgement entitled
17 “Corporation and Its Officers, Director’s, Stockholders, and Members” addresses
18 substantive legal relationships in the corporate context. Restatement (Second) of
19 Judgments § 59. The general rule is that “a judgment in an action to which a corporation
20 is a party has no preclusive effects on a person who is an officer, director, stockholder, or
21 member of a non-stock corporation, nor does a judgment in an action involving a party
22 who is an officer, director, stockholder, or member of a non-stock corporation have
23 preclusive effects on the corporation itself.” Id. Further, section 59 presents certain
24
25
4 Defendants’ citation to In re Gottheiner, 703 F.2d 1136, 1139-40 (1983) does not support privity as to
26 Dr. Ghosheh and Mr. Sadana because in Gottheiner, the court held that privity is established if a party
“owns most or all of the shares in a corporation and controls the affairs of the corporation.” Id. (privity
27 established because “it is undisputed that Gottheiner owned all the outstanding shares of CCHCS stock
and exercised control over its day to day affairs.”). Here, there is no evidence that Dr. Ghosheh and Mr.
28
1 || exceptions to this general rule. Jd. Yet, Defendants fail to argue that any of these
2 exceptions apply as to Dr. Ghosheh and Mr. Sadana to establish privity. Thus, the Court
3 || concludes Defendants have not demonstrated privity between Dimensions and Dr.
4 ||Ghosheh and Mr. Sadana.
5 In conclusion, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motion
6 || for reconsideration.>
7 Conclusion
8 Based on the above, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’
9 || motion for reconsideration and concludes that Defendants have demonstrated privity for
10 || purposes of claim and issue preclusion as to Defendant IQVIA AG and IQVIA Inc. The
11 || Court also DENIES the motion for reconsideration as to Defendants IQVIA Ltd. and
12 Defendants Dr. Ghosheh and Mr. Sadana. Because privity has only been shown as to
13 || Defendants IQVIA AG and IQVIA Inc., if Defendants seek to file a summary judgment
14 || as to these Defendants, they must file another motion for partial summary judgment as
15 relate specifically to Defendants IQVIA AG and IQVIA Inc. The hearing set on
16 21, 2021 shall be vacated.
17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 Dated: May 14, 2021
19 Hon. athe Cae
20 United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
|}
27 ||5 tn opposition, Plaintiffs also present arguments on the merits of the summary judgment motion which
28 is not relevant and not appropriate ona motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 207 at 20-26.)
Accordingly, the Court declines to address Plaintiffs’ arguments.