Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01208/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01208-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 375
Nature of Suit: False Claims Act
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Marc A. Wichansky, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

David T. Zowine, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01208-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendants previously filed a motion in limine to preclude Plaintiff from seeking 

damages at trial based on income he would have received from Zoel. See Doc. 336. At 

the final pretrial conference, the Court heard oral arguments from the parties and 

requested further briefing on the issue. See Doc. 387. After the final pretrial conference, 

the Court issued its pretrial ruling on the pending motions in limine, including a tentative 

ruling on the lost profits issue so the parties could address the Court’s thinking in their 

supplemental briefing. See Doc. 394 at 13-15. 

 The parties subsequently filed simultaneous briefs, which included over eight 

hundred pages of supporting documentation. See Docs. 401; 402. The Court held oral 

arguments on March 30, 2016. Doc. 421. After continuing to consider the parties 

positions, the Court scheduled a second oral argument today. Before the argument, the 

Court provided the parties with an updated version of its thinking so they could address it 

directly. Doc. 425. The Court is now prepared to rule. 

Case 2:13-cv-01208-DGC Document 428 Filed 04/01/16 Page 1 of 7
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

I. Background. 

 In the summary judgment briefing, Defendants argued that Plaintiff could recover 

no “lost income” because the state court had valued his interest in Zoel on an income 

basis and Plaintiff therefore had been paid for any lost income. Doc. 275 at 27-28. 

Defendants argued that permitting Plaintiff to recover additional lost income “would 

amount to impermissible double recovery.” Id. at 28. Plaintiff did not address this 

argument in his response. Doc. 288. 

 Because Defendants did not distinguish in their briefing between profit 

distributions and salary, and referred only to “lost income,” the Court understood 

Defendants to be arguing about income in the traditional sense – salary. With this 

understanding, the Court denied this portion of Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment because the state court valuation focused on the income of Zoel, not Plaintiff. 

Doc. 310 at 11.

 Defendants subsequently moved in limine to preclude evidence of lost profits. 

Doc. 336. Because the motion distinguished, for the first time, between lost profits and 

lost salary, the Court asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing. Doc. 394 at 13. 

As part of that briefing, the parties provided the Court with complete expert reports 

submitted in the state court valuation trial before Judge Oberbillig. See Docs. 401-1 at 2-

162; 401-2 at 2-128. The Court reviewed both expert reports and confirmed that the state 

court proceeding valued Zoel on an income basis. Based on arguments the Court heard 

on March 30, 2016, however, the Court developed a new understanding of Plaintiff’s 

damages theory. That understanding was confirmed by today’s second oral argument. 

Plaintiff’s position is as follows. 

 1. Had Defendants not breached fiduciary duties, there would have been no 

dissolution of Zoel and no state court valuation. Therefore, any remedy for that breach 

must put Plaintiff, as nearly as possible, in the same financial position he would have 

been in had the breach not occurred. 

 2. The state court proceeding valued Zoel, but it did not address Plaintiff’s 

Case 2:13-cv-01208-DGC Document 428 Filed 04/01/16 Page 2 of 7
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

breach of fiduciary duty claim. Plaintiff has cited several excerpts from the state court 

record which make clear that Judge Oberbillig did not decide or award damages for 

Defendants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Doc. 402 at 4-5.1

 3. This case, then, addresses questions that were never decided in the state 

court: did Defendants breach fiduciary duties to Plaintiff, and, if so, what damages will 

restore Plaintiff to the financial position he would have been in had they not breached 

those duties? 

 4. Damages for breaches of fiduciary duty may include lost profits, lost salary, 

out of pocket expenses, and lost equity value. Plaintiff asserts that he has the right to 

choose his damages theory and select from among these possibilities. 

 5. Plaintiff has chosen, as the remedy for the breach of fiduciary duty that has 

never been litigated before, recovery of his lost profits and lost salary, and out-of-pocket 

expenses. These damages measures are set forth in his expert report. Doc. 276-6 at 44-

45. Plaintiff is not seeking to recover the lost equity value of Zoel as a portion of his 

damages in this case. This point is made clear in his expert report, which expressly does 

not attempt to assign a value to Plaintiff’ 50% equity interest in Zoel. Id. at 39, 45, 48. 

In fact, Plaintiff’s expert deducts from his damages calculation the amounts Plaintiff has 

received in payments from Zowine for his share of the Zoel equity value. Id. at 48.2

 6. Plaintiff agrees that he cannot recover damages twice. Thus, if he prevails 

in this case and recovers the measures of damages he has identified for breach of 

fiduciary duty, he agrees that he cannot retain or recover any portion of the valuation 

award he received in the state case. That is why his expert deducted payments he has 

received from the state case. Stated differently, because he seeks in this case to be 

restored to the financial position he would have been in if Defendants had not breached 

 

1

 As Defendants noted during today’s hearing, Defendant Zowine is alleged to have breached his fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and the other Defendants are alleged to have aided and abetted that breach. For simplicity, the Court refers to Defendants collectively in this order. 

2

 In addition, the Court entered summary judgment on Plaintiff’s loss of equity claim in this case. Doc. 310 at 12. 

Case 2:13-cv-01208-DGC Document 428 Filed 04/01/16 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

their fiduciary duties, he cannot retain the value for Zoel he was awarded in the state case 

that occurred because of those breaches. That would be an impermissible double 

recovery. 

II. Analysis. 

 After much effort and many hours over the last two days, the Court is persuaded 

that Plaintiff is correct. He is entitled in this case to seek the full damages caused by 

Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duties – a breach that has never been litigated in state 

court. Those damages should reflect where he would have been, financially, had he not 

been forced out of Zoel. Under Arizona law, a tortfeasor is liable for all damages that 

occur as a result of the tort. Elliott v. Videan, 791 P.2d 639, 645 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). 

These may include “[t]he profit or proceeds [the plaintiff] would have received had [the 

defendant] performed his duties.” Revised Arizona Jury Instructions (Civil), Commercial 

Torts 3 (5th ed. 2014). 

 If Plaintiff prevails, he cannot retain the financial benefits he received from the 

state-court dissolution he claims never should have occurred, and his damages must 

therefore be reduced by payments or other financial benefits he received from Zowine as 

a result of the state-court proceeding. If this is done, a double recovery will be avoided. 

It is irrelevant that the state-court valuation was based on the income approach because 

Plaintiff will not retain any portion of that valuation.3

 The Court is frustrated that it took until March 30, 2016, for these issues to be 

clarified, but cannot conclude that the confusion up to this date is grounds for denying 

Plaintiff appropriate relief if he prevails on his claim for breach of fiduciary duty. As 

already noted, Defendants did not distinguish between lost profits and lost salary in their 

 

3

 In addition to cash payments, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has received the 

financial benefit of not having to pay his share of contingent liabilities. Zowine apparently has sought to recoup Plaintiff’s share of those liabilities by withholding some of the payments Plaintiff otherwise would have received under the state court judgment. If Plaintiff prevails in this case and disavows any financial benefit of the state-court dissolution, his share of the contingent liabilities will be unpaid and will need to be taken 

into account, either as an adjustment of the damages award in this case or in the state proceeding. This is an issue that can be addressed after trial should Plaintiff prevail. 

Case 2:13-cv-01208-DGC Document 428 Filed 04/01/16 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

motion for summary judgment, and neither side sought clarification until motions in 

limine were filed. Even then, the briefing was not entirely clear and the Court sought 

supplemental submissions. Those submissions and the oral argument on March 30 and 

today have led to the Court more clearly understanding the parties’ positions, and to the 

conclusion that an award of lost profits, lost salary, and some out-of-pocket expenses (as 

outlined in the motion for summary judgment) can be an appropriate measure of where 

Plaintiff would have been had he not lost his interest in Zoel through Defendants’ 

allegedly wrongful contact. Any concerns about double recovery will be satisfied by 

Plaintiff not retaining the financial benefits he received from the state-court proceeding 

he claims should never have occurred. This approach does not seek to re-litigate any 

determination made by Judge Oberbillig because he did not address or award damages 

for Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty. 

 During today’s hearing, defense counsel argued that Plaintiff should not be 

permitted to disavow his state court recovery because Plaintiff started the state court 

proceeding that led to the valuation and sale of his interest in Zoel. Defendants noted that 

Plaintiff tried to withdraw his petition to dissolve Zoel, claiming, as he does in this case, 

that he was duped into seeking dissolution by Zowine and his associates. Defendants 

note that Judge Oberbillig rejected the attempt to withdraw, and argue that the judge’s 

decision should have preclusive effect in this case. 

 The Court is not persuaded. Defendants did not seek summary judgment on 

Plaintiff’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty on the basis of res judicata or collateral 

estoppel. See Doc. 275. Defendants’ motion in limine on lost profits did not mention 

these doctrines. See Doc. 336. Nor did Defendants raise these issues in their various 

motions to dismiss. See Docs. 12, 61, 370. To the Court’s knowledge, Defendants have 

never sought to limit Plaintiff’s fiduciary duty claim on the basis of these doctrines. 

Raising the argument on the last business day before trial is not timely. 

 In addition, as Plaintiff noted during today’s hearing, his motion to withdraw the 

petition was made without the benefit of the discovery he has received in this case. And 

Case 2:13-cv-01208-DGC Document 428 Filed 04/01/16 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

as Plaintiff has noted in the past, Judge Oberbillig specifically stated that he was not 

resolving any claims for breach of fiduciary duty. What is more, the Court has reviewed 

the transcript of the hearing in which Judge Oberbillig denied Plaintiff’s motion to 

withdraw his petition for dissolution. Doc. 324-1 at 27-31. The judge noted that the 

petition, and Zowine’s resulting election to buy Plaintiff’s interest, could only be set 

aside under Arizona law on “equitable grounds.” Id. at 31. He then said: “I’m not 

finding that there’s sufficient equitable grounds to set it aside.” Id. This ruling did not 

hold that Plaintiff lacked a claim for breach of fiduciary duty or that his damages in such 

a claim should be limited. The Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff is precluded from 

seeking lost profits damages by res judicata or collateral estoppel. 

 The parties raised an evidentiary issue during today’s call about the extent of 

evidence that will be allowed during trial on the outcome of the state court proceeding. 

The Court previously decided that Defendants would be permitted to introduce in 

evidence Judge Oberbillig’s valuation ruling. Doc. 394 at 7-8. The Court also reached 

this conclusion: “if Defendants present the decision and its $5,000,000 valuation, Plaintiff 

should be permitted to present evidence that he has been paid only $1,400,000 of this 

amount so far. Preventing Plaintiff from doing so would leave the jury with an 

incomplete picture of the state proceedings’ outcome.” Id. at 8. 

 If Defendants feel it important to tell the jury that Zowine has not paid more than 

$1,400,000 because he has taken certain offsets that were allowed by the state court 

decision, they may do so, but they should not describe the specific nature or amounts of 

the offsets. The parties can also elicit testimony that Plaintiff contests some of those 

offsets, but they should make clear – or the Court will instruct – that the contingent 

liabilities are being addressed in state court. Plaintiff may not assert that the offsets are 

improper or attempt to explain why, including the offset that apparently occurred 

yesterday. Such matters are not relevant to the issues in this case, and presenting them to 

the jury would risk unfair prejudice and a waste of time. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion in limine number 7 (Doc. 336) is 

Case 2:13-cv-01208-DGC Document 428 Filed 04/01/16 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

granted in part with respect to expert witness fees (see Doc. 394 at 15) and otherwise 

denied. At trial, Plaintiff may seek compensatory damages for the alleged breaches of 

fiduciary duties, including lost profits. For reasons explained above, he may not seek the 

lost equity value of Zoel (Doc. 310 at 12). 

 Because the Court has heard the parties multiple times on this issue, including the 

hearing today which afforded the parties an opportunity to address the very decisions in 

this order, motions for reconsideration of this order may not be filed. 

 Dated this 1st day of April, 2016. 

Case 2:13-cv-01208-DGC Document 428 Filed 04/01/16 Page 7 of 7