IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MICHAEL DUNN, M.D.,

Plaintiff, 

v.

FASTMED URGENT CARE, P.C.; 

FASTMED HOLDINGS I, LLC; 

FASTMED HOLDINGS, LLC; URGENT 

CARES OF AMERICA HOLDINGS I, 

LLC; and KYLE BOHANNON,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

C.A. No. 2018-0934 MTZ

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Date Submitted: May 29, 2019 

Date Decided: August 30, 2019

Neil R. Lapinski, Phillip A. Giordano, and Kate A. Mahoney, GORDON, 

FOURNARIS & MAMMARELLA, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for 

Plaintiff Michael Dunn, M.D.

Kathleen M. Miller and Kelly A. Green, SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS 

LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Andrew Federhar and Jessica Gale, SPENCER FANE 

LLP, Phoenix, Arizona, Attorneys for Defendants FastMed Urgent Care P.C., 

FastMed Holdings LLC, FastMed Holdings I LLC, Urgent Cares of America 

Holdings I LLC, and Kyle Bohannon. 

ZURN, Vice Chancellor.
2 

The company at the heart of this case provides urgent care medical services 

in Arizona, and employed the plaintiff, who is trained as a physician, as an executive. 

The company went through a merger, after which the plaintiff left the company. The 

plaintiff asserts the post-acquisition company wronged him while negotiating the 

terms of his employment and by asserting a restrictive covenant after he left. The 

plaintiff has failed to plead wrongdoing under Delaware law that is justiciable by 

this Court. 

The first source of wrongdoing is a series of oral promises, which are difficult 

to enforce in the shadow of a series of written agreements. In connection with the 

merger, the parties executed a contract selling the plaintiff’s interest to the 

defendants, as well as an employment agreement. The defendants also allegedly 

promised to deviate from the terms of those agreements, but then failed to deliver; 

instead, the defendants performed under the written agreements. The plaintiff 

asserts the defendants defrauded him and breached the implied covenant of good 

faith and fair dealing. On the defendants’ motion to dismiss, I conclude the fraud 

claims impose a weighty pleading burden that the plaintiff fails to satisfy, and the 

implied covenant claim is only available in certain circumstances not present here. 

The second source of wrongdoing is the defendants’ assertion of a restrictive 

covenant contained in the contract selling the plaintiff’s interest. That five-year 

restrictive covenant prohibited the plaintiff from working in a competitive executive 
3 

capacity, but did not prohibit him from practicing medicine. The restrictive covenant 

contained Delaware forum and choice of law provisions. The plaintiff eventually

resigned from the post-merger company, and accepted a similar executive position 

with an Arizona competitor. The defendants notified the competitor that the 

plaintiff’s employment would be in violation of the restrictive covenant. 

Consequently, the competitor rescinded its employment offer. The plaintiff 

contends that the non-compete provision is unenforceable under Delaware’s statute 

governing restrictions on the practice of medicine, and that the defendants’ assertion 

of the restrictive covenant therefore amounts to intentional interference with the 

plaintiff’s relationship with his prospective employer. I disagree. 

The plaintiff also contends that the defendants’ efforts to enforce the noncompete amount to defamation per se and that the defendants’ acts constitute civil 

conspiracy. In the absence of any other well-pled claim, this Court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s defamation claim, and there is no underlying 

wrong on which to base his conspiracy claim. The motion to dismiss is granted.
4 

I. BACKGROUND

I draw the facts from the allegations in and documents incorporated by 

reference or integral to the Complaint.1

 I must accept as true the Complaint’s wellpled factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences from those allegations in 

Plaintiff’s favor.2

A. Dunn Executes A Letter Of Transmittal As Part Of FastMed’s 

Acquisition Of Urgent Cares.

Plaintiff Michael Dunn is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the state 

of Arizona. In 2003, Dunn became a member and manager of an Arizona 

professional limited liability company, TriCity Express Care, PLLC, dba Urgent 

Care Express (“Urgent Cares”), that offered urgent care services. Urgent Cares was 

acquired in 2011; the surviving entity is also referred to as Urgent Cares. In 2012, 

Dunn became Urgent Cares’ Chief Medical Officer, Arizona, and signed an 

employment agreement. In May 2015, Dunn sold his ownership interest in Urgent 

Cares to FastMed Holdings, LLC, when that entity acquired Urgent Cares pursuant 

to a Purchase Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into by several affiliated 

companies. 

 

1 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. AIG Life Ins. Co., 860 A.2d 312, 320 (Del. 2004). All citations 

to the Complaint are to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint. Docket Item (“D.I”) 1. 

2 In re Gen. Motors (Hughes) S’holder Litig., 897 A.2d 162, 168 (Del. 2006). 
5 

At first, Dunn refused to sign a Letter of Transmittal to sell his interest in 

Urgent Cares “due to disagreements regarding the scope of [its] non-compete 

clause.”3

 On May 28, 2015, Dunn communicated these concerns to two 

representatives of FastMed affiliates: Kyle Bohannon, a manager of FastMed 

Holdings I, LLC, and Kevin Blank, CEO of FastMed Urgent Care, P.C. “Bohannon 

and Blank responded to Dunn’s concerns by communicating to Dunn that he would 

be unable to redeem his Profits Interest Units if he refused to sign the Letter of 

Transmittal.”4

 Blank then suggested “amend[ing] the language of the non-compete 

to allow for Dunn to continue to work in the urgent care field.”5

 The three “agreed 

that at the conclusion of the Purchase Agreement and Plan of Merger, Bohannon 

would redraft the Letter of Transmittal’s non-compete clause to be for only three 

years, and that there would be a separate carve out that would permit Dunn to work 

as a medical director immediately following separation.”6

 

Based on this agreement, Dunn signed the Letter of Transmittal that same day, 

exchanging his interest in Urgent Cares for approximately $1,000,000. The Letter 

of Transmittal contained the following restrictive covenant (the “Restrictive 

Covenant”): 

 

3

 Compl. ¶ 17. 

4 Id. 

5 Id.

6 Id. ¶ 18. 
6 

Effective as of the Closing ... [Dunn] hereby agrees that, 

from the Closing Date until the five (5) year anniversary of 

the Closing Date, [Dunn] will not, without the prior written 

consent of Buyer, directly or indirectly, engage in any 

activity, or participate or invest in, or provide or facilitate 

the provision of financing to, or assist, in each case, 

whether as owner, part-owner, equity holder, member, 

partner, director, officer, trustee, employee, agent or 

consultant, or in any other capacity, or by providing any 

financial, operational or technical assistance to any Person 

that engages in, any business, organization or other Person 

other than the Surviving Company or a Company 

Subsidiary whose business activities, products or services 

are competitive with the Business or that otherwise 

competes with the Business, or interview for any potential 

employment, directorship, advising or consulting 

relationship with any such business, organization or other 

Person, in each case, anywhere in the United States 

(collectively, “Prohibited Activities”).7

 

The non-compete provision would not apply “in the case [that Dunn] is a physician, 

being employed as (and providing customary services of) a physician.”8

 The Letter 

of Transmittal contained a Delaware choice of law and forum selection clause.9

B. Dunn Signs An Employment Agreement With FastMed, Then 

Resigns After FastMed Demotes Him.

On or about June 22, 2015, Dunn entered into the Second Amended and 

Restated Employment Agreement (the “Second Employment Agreement”) with 

 

7 Id. ¶ 20; id. Ex. B at 9. 

8 Id. Ex. B at 9. 

9 Id. Ex. B at 4 (incorporating Purchase Agreement into Letter of Transmittal); D.I. 12 Ex. 

2 §§ 14.08–.09. 
7 

FastMed Urgent Care, P.C. (“FastMed”), as Urgent Cares’ successor in interest, and 

assumed the title of “Regional Chief Medical Officer, and President, Arizona.”10 

The Second Employment Agreement applied during Dunn’s employment and for six 

months thereafter. The Second Employment Agreement was contingent upon the 

consummation and closing of the Purchase Agreement. The Purchase Agreement 

closed as planned, and Dunn became subject to the Second Employment Agreement.

At some point, “Bohannon and other executives expressly assured Dunn that 

the position of employment offered to Dunn pursuant to the [Second Employment 

Agreement] was a long-term position.”11 But the Second Employment Agreement 

provided that Dunn was an at-will employee.12 It also gave Dunn the right to 

terminate his employment for “Good Reason” as defined thereunder; if he did so, he 

would receive certain payments and benefits.13 The Second Employment 

Agreement defined “Good Reason” as including “the Company’s assignment of 

[Dunn] (without his consent) to a position, responsibilities, or duties of a materially 

 

10 Compl. ¶ 22; id. Ex. C. 

11 Id. ¶ 24. 

12 Id. Ex. C § 5(a), (d). 

13 Id. Ex. C § 5(b). 
8 

lesser status or degree of responsibility than his position, responsibilities, and duties 

set forth [herein].”14

In August 2015, Bohannon informed Dunn that FastMed had eliminated 

Dunn’s position, and that Dunn would be reporting to a then-junior physician that 

was being promoted to Chief Medical Officer. Dunn resigned for Good Reason, and 

the parties entered into a Separation Agreement dated September 21, 2015.

15 The 

Separation Agreement contained an Arizona choice of law and forum selection 

clause.16

C. Dunn Receives A Job Offer That Leads To Litigation Over The 

Scope Of Prior Agreements.

In August 2016, nonparty Banner Health offered Dunn the position of 

Physician Executive, which Dunn accepted. FastMed’s counsel threatened legal 

action, “stating that Dunn and Banner Health would be in violation of Dunn’s alleged 

ongoing restrictive covenant arising out of the Letter of Transmittal agreed to on 

May 28, 2015.”17 Banner Health backed away and did not let Dunn start his job, 

informing him that it would rescind the employment offer if he could not resolve the 

 

14 Id. Ex. C § 23(e). 

15 Id. Ex. D; id. Ex. E.

16 Id. Ex. D. § 11(g). 

17 Id. ¶ 35; id. Ex. G. 
9 

matter.

18 Dunn’s counsel and FastMed exchanged letters that did not resolve the 

dispute, leading Dunn to seek judicial relief in Arizona.19

Dunn’s Arizona complaint, filed on September 26, 2016, sought a temporary 

restraining order, preliminary injunction, and order to show cause concerning 

FastMed’s alleged interference with his employment with Banner Health. On 

February 7, 2017, the Arizona Court dismissed Dunn’s complaint, ruling that the 

Letter of Transmittal’s Delaware forum selection clause applied such that Dunn had 

to sue in Delaware.20 Dunn appealed the decision, but lost in the Arizona Court of 

Appeals in June 2018.21 

On December 26, 2018, Dunn filed suit here against FastMed; Urgent Cares 

of America Holdings I, LLC; FastMed Holdings, LLC; FastMed Holdings I, LLC; 

and Bohannon (together, “Defendants”).

22 The Complaint seeks injunctive relief to 

prevent Defendants from applying the Restrictive Covenant (Count One) and a 

declaratory judgment that the Restrictive Covenant violates Delaware law and public 

policy (Count Seven). It also seeks damages for alleged breach of the implied 

 

18 Id. Ex. I. 

19 Id. Ex. H; id. Ex. J.

20 Id. Ex. K. 

21 Dunn v. FastMed Urgent Care PC, 424 P.3d 436, 438 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). 

22 Plaintiff named Comvest Investment Partners IV-A, L.P., and Comvest Investment 

Partners Holdings, LLC, as defendants in the Complaint. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed

these two parties on April 10, 2019. D.I. 18. 
10

covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count Two), negligent misrepresentations 

(Count Three), fraud (Count Four), intentional interference with contractual 

relationship (Count Five), and civil conspiracy (Count Six). Dunn also seeks 

injunctive relief and damages for defamation per se (Count Eight).

Defendants moved to dismiss on February 8, 2019. The parties completed 

briefing on April 23, and I heard oral argument on May 29.

II. ANALYSIS

The standards for reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for 

relief are well settled: 

[A] trial court should accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the 

Complaint as true, accept even vague allegations in the Complaint as 

“well-pleaded” if they provide the defendant notice of the claim, draw 

all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, and deny the motion 

unless the plaintiff could not recover under any reasonably conceivable 

set of circumstances susceptible of proof.23

The motion to dismiss “will be granted where it appears with ‘reasonable certainty’ 

that the plaintiff could not prevail on any set of facts that can be inferred from the 

pleadings.”24 Applying this standard, each of Dunn’s counts is dismissed. 

 

23 Cent. Mortg. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Capital Hldgs. LLC, 27 A.3d 531, 536 (Del. 

2011) (citation omitted). 

24 Leonard Loventhal Account v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 2000 WL 1528909, at *3 (Del. Ch. 

Oct. 10, 2000) (quoting Solomon v. Pathe Comm’ns Corp., 672 A.2d 35, 38 (Del. 1996)), 

aff’d sub nom. Account v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 780 A.2d 245 (Del. 2001). 
11

A. Dunn Has Not Stated A Claim For Breach Of The Implied 

Covenant. 

According to Dunn, the Letter of Transmittal and the Second Employment 

Agreement “were part of the plan by which he would continue operating in his 

executive role as Regional Chief Medical Officer and President, Arizona, as 

contemplated by the [Second Employment Agreement].”25 He claims Defendants 

“breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by accepting the 

benefits of Dunn’s cooperation, his surrender of Profits Interest Units, and his good 

faith attempts to continue his position of employment with FastMed Urgent Care, 

P.C. pursuant to their contracts” and then “[eliminating] his position shortly after, 

and attempting to enforce an inapplicable restrictive covenant .”26 Dunn fails to state 

a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 

“The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inheres in every contract 

and ‘requires “a party in a contractual relationship to refrain from arbitrary or 

unreasonable conduct which has the effect of preventing the other party to the 

contract from receiving the fruits” of the bargain.’”27 “To state a claim for breach 

 

25 Compl. ¶ 63. 

26 Id. ¶ 64. 

27 Kuroda v. SPJS Hldgs., L.L.C., 971 A.2d 872, 888 (Del. Ch. 2009) (quoting Dunlap v. 

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 878 A.2d 434, 442 (Del. 2005)); see also Merrill v. CrothallAm., Inc., 606 A.2d 96, 101 (Del. 1992) (“[E]very employment contract made under the 

laws of this State, consonant with general principles of contract law, includes an implied 

covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”). 
12

of the implied covenant, a litigant must allege a specific obligation implied in the 

contract, a breach of that obligation, and resulting damages.”28 The implied 

covenant is often invoked in two situations: 

[O]ne ... is when it is argued that a situation has arisen that was 

unforeseen by the parties and where the agreement’s express terms do 

not cover what should happen. The other situation ... is when a party 

to the contract is given discretion to act as to a certain subject and it is 

argued that the discretion has been used in a way that is impliedly 

proscribed by the contract’s express terms.29 

The implied covenant may also be invoked when the parties’ “conduct frustrates the 

‘overarching purpose’ of the contract by taking advantage of their position to control 

implementation of the agreement’s terms.”30 

In any case, the implied covenant cannot be used to “base a claim ... on 

conduct authorized by the terms of the agreement.”31 “Only when it is clear from 

the writing that the contracting parties would have agreed to proscribe the act later 

complained of ... had they thought to negotiate with respect to that matter may a 

 

28 Fortis Advisors LLC v. Dialog Semiconductor PLC, 2015 WL 401371, at *3 (Del. Ch. 

Jan. 30, 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Matthew v. Laudamiel, 2012 

WL 605589, at *16 (Del. Ch. Feb. 21, 2012)). 

29 Oxbow Carbon & Minerals Hldgs., Inc. v. Crestview-Oxbow Acq., LLC, 202 A.3d 482, 

504 n.93 (Del. 2019) (citations omitted). 

30 Corp. Prop. Assocs. 14 Inc. v. CHR Hldg. Corp., 2008 WL 963048, at *5 (Del. Ch. 

Apr. 10, 2008) (quoting Dunlap, 878 A.2d at 442). 

31 Dunlap, 878 A.2d at 441; see also Allen v. El Paso Pipeline GP Co., L.L.C., 113 A.3d 

167, 183 (Del. Ch. 2014) (“recognizing “the implied covenant will not infer language that 

contradicts a clear exercise of an express contractual right” (quoting Nemec v. Shrader, 

991 A.2d 1120, 1127 (Del. 2010))). 
13

party invoke the covenant’s protections.”32 “Where the contract speaks directly 

regarding the issue in dispute, ‘[e]xisting contract terms control ... such that implied 

good faith cannot be used to circumvent the parties’ bargain, or to create a “freefloating duty unattached to the underlying legal documents.”’”33

Dunn premises his implied covenant claim on “a set of contracts [that] existed 

between Dunn and Defendants, including: the Letter of Transmittal, the [Second 

Employment Agreement], and the Separation Agreement.”34 Dunn does not allege 

the implied covenant fills a gap, nor does he allege any misuse of a granted 

discretionary power. Rather, he contends Defendants engaged in a bait-and-switch 

to induce him into signing the Letter of Transmittal and Second Employment 

Agreement, by promising long-term employment at a senior level, but then 

eliminating his position, demoting him, and enforcing the Restrictive Covenant. 

Dunn’s claim flows from his expectation that that the Letter of Transmittal and 

Second Employment Agreement “were part of the plan by which he would continue 

operating in his executive role.”35 

Dunn’s implied covenant claim is belied by the contracts he signed. There 

are no terms to be implied in those contracts. Rather, Dunn agreed to terms that 

 

32 CHR Hldg. Corp., 2008 WL 963048, at *5 (quoting Dunlap, 878 A.2d at 442). 

33 Fortis, 2015 WL 401371, at *3 (quoting Dunlap, 878 A.2d at 441). 

34 Compl. ¶ 58. 

35 Id. ¶ 63. 
14

contradict those he wishes to imply. Dunn expected that surrendering his interests 

in Urgent Cares would lead to a less restrictive non-compete agreement and a longterm, senior position with the post-merger company.36 But he signed the Letter of 

Transmittal with a contradictory five-year term. He also signed the Second 

Employment Agreement with contradictory terms providing that: (1) FastMed could 

terminate Dunn’s employment with or without cause,37 and (2) Dunn could be 

demoted and thereafter resign for Good Reason.38 Because the Letter of Transmittal 

and Second Employment Agreement speak directly to the issues in dispute, Dunn 

has failed to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant.39 

 Because Dunn brings his implied covenant claim in the context of his at-will 

employment, additional discussion is warranted. Delaware law carefully 

circumscribes implied covenant claims in the at-will employment context.40 Dunn 

 

36 Id. ¶¶ 18, 24, 63, 64. 

37 Id. Ex. C § 5(a), (d). 

38 Id. ¶¶ 27–28. 

39 See Dunlap, 878 A.2d at 441 (“[O]ne generally cannot base a claim for breach of the 

implied covenant on conduct authorized by the terms of the agreement.”); Allen, 113 A.3d 

at 183 (holding that covenant cannot be used to “contradict[] a clear exercise of an express 

contractual right” (citing Nemec, 991 A.2d at 1125)); Fortis, 2015 WL 401371, at *3 

(“Where the contract speaks directly regarding the issue in dispute, ‘[e]xisting contract 

terms control ... .”). 

40 See e.g., Rizzitiello v. McDonald’s Corp., 868 A.2d 825 (Del. 2005) (en banc); E.I. 

DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Pressman, 679 A.2d 436 (Del. 1996); Merrill, 606 A.2d at 

101. 
15

relies on one such case, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Pressman,

41 in claiming

Defendants’ deception breached the implied covenant. “In Delaware, there is a 

‘heavy presumption that a contract for employment, unless otherwise expressly 

stated, is at-will in nature, with duration indefinite.’ Although at-will employment 

remains a heavy presumption in this State, every employment contract contains an 

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”42 However, “the implied covenant 

is to be narrowly construed.”43 “Courts have been reluctant to recognize a broad 

application of the [implied] Covenant out of a concern that the Covenant could 

thereby swallow the [employment-at-will] Doctrine and effectively end at-will 

employment.”44 In this balance, Dunn fails to state an implied covenant claim. 

In Pressman, a supervisor “set out on a campaign to discredit” an employee 

and manufactured materially false grounds to cause his dismissal.45 Pressman 

“relates solely to an act or acts of the employer manifesting bad faith or unfair 

dealing achieved by deceit or misrepresentation in falsifying or manipulating a 

record to create fictitious grounds to terminate employment.”46 Where the employee 

 

41 679 A.2d 436 (Del. 1996). 

42 Rizzitiello, 868 A.2d at 830 (first quoting Pressman, 679 A.2d at 440; and then citing 

Merrill, 606 A.2d at 101). 

43 Id. at 831 (citing Pressman, 679 A.2d at 437). 

44 Pressman, 679 A.2d at 442 (citations omitted). 

45 Id. at 444. 

46 Id. at 443–44.
16

resigned, and was not terminated, the employee cannot show a breach of the implied 

covenant under Pressman.

47 It is undisputed that Dunn was not terminated; Dunn’s 

employment ended with his resignation. Further, Dunn does not allege that 

Defendants falsified the grounds for his separation from FastMed. Although 

informative, Pressman cannot bear the weight of Count Two. 

Pressman is among the progeny of Merrill v. Crothall-American, Inc., in 

which a terminated employee alleged the employer “induced him to enter into the 

employment contract by concealing from him its intention to employ him only 

temporarily while allowing him to proceed under the belief that the duration of the 

employment was, at the least, indefinite. So stated, a valid claim for breach of an 

implied covenant of fair dealing is properly pleaded.”48 The Delaware Supreme 

 

47 See Rizzitiello, 868 A.2d at 831. The Delaware Supreme Court “recognized 

in Pressman, that an employee who voluntarily resigns rather than being terminated may 

have a claim for constructive discharge.” Id. Dunn did not bring such a claim. 

48 606 A.2d 96, 102 (Del. 1992). The Delaware Supreme Court contextualized Merrill

within the balance between at-will employment and the implied covenant of good faith and 

fair dealing as follows: 

As a general rule, Delaware law creates a heavy presumption that a contract 

for employment, unless otherwise expressly stated, is at-will in nature with 

duration indefinite. We have identified four primary situations in which an 

employer’s authority to terminate an employee is limited by 

the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing: (1) where the 

employee’s termination violates public policy, (2) where the employer 

misrepresents an important fact and the employee relies on it when deciding 

to accept a new position or to remain at a present one, (3) where the employer 

uses its superior bargaining power to deprive an employee of identifiable 

compensation related to an employee’s past service, and (4) where an 
17

Court explained that bad faith exists where an employer induces another to enter into 

an employment contract and its actions in doing so are intentionally deceptive.49 

At first glance, the claim in Merrill appears to resemble Dunn’s. But “the 

exceptions to the employment at-will doctrine are narrow and discrete.”50 Upon 

closer inspection, the facts before the Court and the facts in Merrill diverge in 

distinct and important ways. In Merrill and its progeny, the permissible claims were 

brought by employees who were terminated.51 That is not the case here: Dunn 

voluntarily resigned for a contractually sanctioned reason. 

Merrill also requires that the employer intend, at the moment of the 

misrepresentation, to act otherwise. “[T]o constitute a breach of the implied 

covenant of good faith, the conduct of the employer must constitute an aspect of 

fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”52 

The lodestar here is candor. An employer acts in bad faith when it 

induces another to enter into an employment contract through actions, 

words, or the withholding of information, which is intentionally 

 

employer through deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation manipulates the 

record to create fictitious grounds to terminate employment. 

Bailey v. City of Wilm., 766 A.2d 477, 480 (Del. 2001) (footnote and internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

49 Merrill, 606 A.2d at 101. 

50 Lord v. Souder, 748 A.2d 393, 403 (Del. 2000). 

51 See Pressman, 679 A.2d at 439; Merrill, 606 A.2d at 98; see also Rizzitiello, 868 A.2d 

at 831–32 (recognizing application of the implied covenant to employees who are 

constructively discharged). 

52 Merrill, 606 A.2d at 101 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 
18

deceptive in some way material to the contract. Such conduct 

constitutes an aspect of fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.53 

“Absent bad faith, an employer has the freedom to terminate an at-will employment 

relationship for its own legitimate business, or even highly subjective, reasons.”54 

Dunn does not assert Defendants intended to employ him only temporarily, or 

to demote him, at the time they induced him to sign the Letter of Transmittal and 

Second Employment Agreement with promises of long-term senior employment. 

Dunn only pleads

Defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by 

accepting the benefits of Dunn’s cooperation, his surrender of Profits 

Interest Units, and his good faith attempts to continue in his position of 

employment with FastMed Urgent Care, P.C. pursuant to their 

contracts, and proceeded to eliminate his position shortly after, and 

attempting to enforce an inapplicable restrictive covenant to ensure that 

Dunn cannot compete with FastMed Urgent Care, P.C.55 

Dunn’s pleading is premised on what he “expected,” not what Defendants 

intended.56 Dunn fails to plead the requisite intent and has therefore failed to state a 

claim for breach of the implied covenant under Merrill. Count Two is dismissed.

 

53 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

54 Peterson v. Beebe Med. Ctr., Inc., 623 A.2d 1142, 1993 WL 102560, at *2 (Del. Mar. 

24, 1993) (TABLE) (citing Merrill, 606 A.2d at 102). 

55 Compl. ¶ 64. 

56 Id. ¶ 63. In Dunn’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion, he argues that Defendants 

intended to induce him into signing the Letter of Transmittal in order to consummate the 

Purchase Agreement and intended to subsequently terminate his employment. D.I. 16 at 

12 (“While the deceit in Pressman was aimed at causing the employee’s termination, the 

deceit here was intended to induce Dunn to sign the LOT in order to consummate the 
19

B. Dunn Has Not Stated A Claim For Negligent Misrepresentation or 

Fraud.

Dunn asserts claims of negligent misrepresentation (Count Three) and fraud 

(Count Four). Dunn’s negligent misrepresentation claim is based on the Letter of 

Transmittal.57 Specifically, Dunn alleges that “Defendants made statements to 

induce [him] to surrender his Profits Interest Units and to become subject to the 

restrictive covenant stated in the Letter of Transmittal.”58 Dunn’s fraud claim is 

based on those same alleged statements, as well as alleged representations that he 

 

Purchase Agreement, terminate Dunn’s employment, and deprive him of the more 

favorable terms of the Second Agreement and Separation Agreement when the ink on the 

purchase agreement was barely dry.”). He further argues that these facts were pled in the 

Complaint. Id. They were not pled under Count Two. Dunn’s fraud claim pleads that 

Defendants knew the representations were false and that the sequence of events leads to 

the “logical conclusion” that Defendants intended to induce him into executing the Second 

Employment Agreement. See Compl. ¶¶ 75, 77. But Dunn did not attempt to meet the 

implied covenant’s intent requirement until his Opposition. His brief cannot patch pleading 

deficiencies. See, e.g., Akrout v. Jarkoy, 2018 WL 3361401, at *3 n.23 (Del. Ch. July 10, 

2018), rearg. denied, 2018 WL 4501174 (Del. Ch. Sept. 19, 2018) (“Plaintiff’s counsel’s 

post hoc attempt to clarify the allegations in the Complaint in response to a motion to 

dismiss, while understandable given the paucity of the Complaint, cannot be received as a 

supplement or amendment to the pleading itself.”); Orman v. Cullman, 794 A.2d 5, 28 n.59 

(Del. Ch. 2002) (“[Plaintiff] improperly attempts to expand the scope of his complaint in 

his brief opposing the motion to dismiss ... . At this stage of litigation, the Court is only 

permitted to consider the well-pleaded facts contained in the complaint and any documents 

incorporated by reference into that complaint ... . Briefs relating to a motion to dismiss are 

not part of the record and any attempt contained within such documents to plead new facts 

or expand those contained in the complaint will not be considered.”). 

57 Dunn does not mention the Second Employment Agreement in Count Three. See Compl. 

¶¶ 66–71. My analysis of Dunn’s negligent misrepresentation claim focuses solely on the 

Letter of Transmittal. 

58 Id. ¶ 67. 
20

would have a “long-term position” under the Second Employment Agreement.

59 

Because events unfolded differently, Dunn argues the representations must be 

interpreted as fraudulent and intended to induce him into surrendering his Profits 

Interest Units and agreeing to the Restrictive Covenant.60 Assuming for the sake of 

this motion that Dunn is permitted to rely on Defendants’ extra-contractual 

statements,61 Dunn has failed to state claims for fraud and negligent 

misrepresentation.

1. Dunn Has Failed To Plead Fraudulent Intent To Break A 

Promise. 

In Delaware, fraud requires that the plaintiff allege “(i) a false representation, 

(ii) the defendant’s knowledge of or belief in its falsity or the defendant’s reckless 

indifference to its truth, (iii) the defendant’s intention to induce action based on the 

 

59 Unlike his negligent misrepresentation claim, Dunn’s fraud claim is based on both the 

Letter of Transmittal and the Second Employment Agreement. Id. ¶¶ 72–81. 

60 Id. ¶ 67; see also id. ¶ 75 (“The abrupt elimination of the position brings the logical 

conclusion that the statements to retain Dunn under the Letter of Transmittal and Second 

Amended and Restated Employment Agreement were fraudulent misrepresentations 

intended to induce Dunn into surrendering his Profits Interest Units and sign a restrictive 

covenant that was not agreed upon and unreasonable in scope.”). 

61 Defendants argue Dunn disclaimed reliance on extra-contractual representations. D.I. 

12 at 19–20. They point to Section 5.26 of the Purchase Agreement, D.I. 12 Ex. 2, and the 

Second Employment Agreement, Compl. Ex. C § 16. Case law suggests that neither 

provision prevents Dunn from asserting a fraud claim. See, e.g., FdG Logistics, LLC v. 

A & R Logistics Hldgs. Inc., 131 A.3d 842, 859 (Del. Ch. 2016); Prairie Capital III, L.P. 

v. Double E Hldg. Corp., 132 A.3d 35, 50–51 (Del. Ch. 2015); Abry P’rs V, L.P. v. F & W 

Acq. LLC, 891 A.2d 1032, 1058–59 (Del. Ch. 2006). But I need not resolve this issue today 

because Counts Three and Four are properly dismissed on other grounds. 
21

representation, (iv) reasonable reliance by the plaintiff on the representation, and 

(v) causally related damages.”62 Court of Chancery Rule 9(b) requires a plaintiff to 

plead fraud with particularity.63 Specifically, Rule 9(b) mandates that 

[t]he factual circumstances to be “stated with particularity refer to the 

time, place, and contents of the false representations; the facts 

misrepresented; the identity of the person(s) making the 

misrepresentation; and what that person(s) gained from making the 

misrepresentation.”64 

Usually, intent can be pled generally.65 But when a fraud claim hinges on 

promissory statements, or expressions as to what will happen in the future, a plaintiff 

must plead “particularized facts that allow the Court to infer that, at the time the 

 

62 Prairie Capital, 132 A.3d at 49 (citing Stephenson v. Capano Dev., Inc., 462 A.2d 1069, 

1074 (Del. 1983)). 

63 Ct. Ch. R. 9(b) (“In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting 

fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.”). 

64 GreenStar IH Rep, LLC v. Tutor Perini Corp., 2017 WL 5035567, at *10 (Del. Ch. 

Oct. 31, 2017) (quoting Trenwick Am. Litig. Tr. v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P., 906 A.2d 168, 

207–08 (Del. Ch. 2006), aff’d sub nom. Trenwick Am. Litig. Tr. v. Billett, 931 A.2d 438 

(Del. 2007)), aff’d, 186 A.3d 799 (Del. 2018); see also Steinman v. Levine, 2002 WL 

31761252, at *14 (Del. Ch. Nov. 27, 2002), aff’d, 822 A.2d 397 (Del. 2003) (“[A] well 

pleaded fraud allegation must include at least ‘the time, place and contents of the false 

representations . . . and what [was] obtained thereby.’” (second alteration in original) 

(quoting Crescent/Mach I P’rs, L.P. v. Turner, 846 A.2d 963, 988 (Del. Ch. Sept. 29, 

2000)). 

65 See Grunstein v. Silva, 2009 WL 4698541, at *13 (Del. Ch. Dec. 8, 2009) (“[A] 

traditional fraud claim ... allows a plaintiff to plead intent generally.”). 
22

promise was made, the speaker had no intention of keeping it.”66 In Grunstein v. 

Silva, this Court stated:

[B]ecause the factual predicate of a promissory fraud claim is the 

speaker’s state of mind at the time the statement is made, a general 

averment of a culpable state of mind is insufficient. Instead, the 

plaintiff “must plead specific facts that lead to a reasonable inference 

that the promissor had no intention of performing at the time the 

promise was made.”67

“This is, in part, because of the general rule that ‘statements which are merely 

promissory in nature and expressions as to what will happen in the future are not 

actionable as fraud.’”68 “To anticipate the future and predicate falsehood upon an 

act to be done or omitted at a future day would change a mere broken promise into 

a fraud on the part of him who was bound to fulfill the engagement ... .”69 “[A] 

party’s failure to keep a promise does not prove the promise was false when made.”70 

 

66 MicroStrategy Inc. v. Acacia Research Corp., 2010 WL 5550455, at *15 (Del. Ch. Dec. 

30, 2010); see also Grunstein, 2009 WL 4698541, at *13 (stating plaintiff must allege 

particularized facts that infer “the speaker had no intention of performing”); Outdoor 

Techs., Inc. v. Allfirst Fin., Inc., 2001 WL 541472, at *4 (Del. Super. Apr. 12, 2001) (“Only 

when such statements are made with the present intention not to perform will courts 

endorse a fraud claim.”). 

67 Grunstein, 2009 WL 4698541, at *13 (citing Winner Acceptance Corp. v. Return on 

Capital Corp., 2008 WL 5352063, at *10 (Del. Ch. Dec. 23, 2008)). 

68 Id. (citing Outdoor Techs., 2001 WL 541472, at *4).

69 Id. (citation omitted). 

70 Id. (quoting Berdel, Inc. v. Berman Real Estate Mgmt., Inc., 1997 WL 793088, at *8 

(Del. Ch. Dec. 15, 1997)). 
23

Dunn predicates his claim on promissory statements, or “expressions as to 

what will happen in the future.”71 When Dunn signed the Letter of Transmittal, he 

was aware of the five-year Restrictive Covenant. Dunn’s fraud claim is based on his 

“oral agreement” with Bohannon and Blank to amend the Restrictive Covenant in 

the future, after the Letter of Transmittal had been signed. Similarly, when Dunn 

signed the Second Employment Agreement, its terms expressly rendered him an atwill employee who was subject to demotion. Dunn relies on promises by “Bohannon

and other executives” that he would be retained in a “long-term position.”72 

Defendants’ statements that contradicted the written terms were promises to deviate 

from those terms in the future. Because Defendants failed to fulfill those promises, 

Dunn concludes that he has been defrauded. Without a proper pleading of intent, 

these promissory statements cannot support Dunn’s fraud claim.

Dunn has not pled specific facts that lead to a reasonable inference that the 

Defendants had no intention of performing at the time of their promises. Dunn only 

pleads general averments of a culpable state of mind, stating that the “Defendants 

knew that the representations were false”73 and that the sequence of events leads to 

 

71 Id. A promise of a future outcome is distinct from a misrepresentation of existing fact. 

“A false assertion presupposes that an event has occurred, that a duty has been performed, 

that a fact has intervened or that an authority exists, either or all of which may have induced 

the contract or prevented its being consummated.” Id. (citation omitted). 

72 Compl. ¶ 24. 

73 Id. ¶ 77. 
24

the “logical conclusion” that Defendants intended to induce Dunn to sign the 

agreements without fulfilling their promises.

74 

In particular, Dunn does not plead that Bohannon and Blank intended to break

their alleged promise to renegotiate the Restrictive Covenant. He does not plead any 

explanation for why the alleged agreement altering the terms never materialized. All 

that is before the Court is that the parties subsequently entered into the Second 

Employment Agreement, which left the Restrictive Covenant in place. Similarly, 

Dunn has failed to plead that Defendants never intended to keep him in his senior 

position as promised. He does not plead any explanation as to why the Second 

Employment Agreement contradicted the alleged promises by enumerating Dunn’s 

at-will employment status and permitting his demotion. Dunn has failed to plead 

that the Defendants never intended to keep their promises to renegotiate the 

Restrictive Covenant or to keep Dunn in a long-term position. He has failed to state 

a claim for promissory fraud. 

2. Dunn Has Failed To Plead The Other Elements Of Fraud 

Under Rule 9(b). 

To plead the other elements of his fraud claim under Rule 9(b), Dunn must 

adequately identify the “time, place, and contents of the false representations; the 

facts misrepresented; the identity of the person(s) making the misrepresentation; and 

 

74 Id. ¶ 75. 
25

what that person(s) gained from making the misrepresentation.”75 Dunn is also

required to identify specific statements by individual defendants.76 Dunn’s claim 

“has simply mirrored the language of the necessary fraud elements. [His] complaint 

contains no facts to support his conclusory allegations, as to the time, place or 

contents of the false representations.”77 

In support of his fraud claim under the Letter of Transmittal, Dunn alleges: 

Directly preceding Dunn’s signing of the Letter of Transmittal on or 

about May 28, 2015, Kyle Bohannon and Kevin Blank, then-CEO of 

FastMed Urgent Care, P.C., made specific representations to Dunn 

regarding the terms of the restrictive covenant and acknowledged 

Dunn’s concerns regarding the scope of the agreement, ultimately 

culminating in an oral agreement to alter the terms of the restrictive 

covenant that would permit Dunn to work as a medical director 

immediately following separation.78

Dunn premises his claim on “specific representations” made by Bohannon and 

Blank, grouped together.

79 Dunn cannot adequately plead fraud based on allegations 

 

75 GreenStar IH Rep, LLC, 2017 WL 5035567, at *10 (quoting Trenwick Am. Litig. Tr., 

906 A.2d at 207–08). 

76 Fortis, 2015 WL 401371, at *8 (“[Plaintiff] does not even identify misrepresentations 

made by any particular individuals. He simply lumps all the Director Defendants together 

in his cause of action. [Plaintiff] is required to identify specific acts of individual 

defendants for his ... claim to survive.” (citing Steinman, 2002 WL 31761252, at *15)). 

77 Steinman, 2002 WL 31761252, at *14. 

78 Compl. ¶ 74. 

79 Id.; see also id. ¶ 18. 
26

that Bohannon and Blank together represented a certain result without distinguishing 

as between them and identifying their specific statements.80

 Dunn’s allegations of fraud in the execution of the Second Employment 

Agreement are similarly untethered to any individual speaker. Dunn relies on 

assurances “that the position of employment offered to [him] pursuant to the [Second 

Employment Agreement] was a long-term position.”81 He alleges:

Kyle Bohannon expressly stated to Dunn that Dunn’s employment 

under the Second Amended and Restated Employment Agreement that 

he was needed not only to continue to run the Arizona market, but also 

that he would assist[] with running the Texas market, and that he was 

very much needed as an asset going forward.82 

He also alleges “Kyle Bohannon and other executives of the Affiliated Companies 

further expressly assured Dunn that the position of employment offered to [him] 

pursuant to the [Second Employment Agreement] was a long-term position.”83 

“[T]he [C]omplaint fails to identify who made any particular 

misrepresentation ... . Instead, the [C]omplaint asserts that one of [Bohannon and 

other executives] made the representations, but we do not know who allegedly made 

 

80 See Steinman, 2002 WL 31761252, at *15 (“[Plaintiff] is required to identify specific 

acts of individual defendants for his negligent misrepresentation claim to survive.”). 

81 Compl. ¶ 24. 

82 Id. ¶ 75. 

83 Id. ¶ 24. 
27

which statement(s).”84 While Dunn alleges that Bohannon “expressly stated” that 

he was “very much needed as an asset going forward,”85 he improperly groups 

Bohannon together with “other executives” who allegedly assured Dunn that his was 

a “long-term position.”86 Dunn cannot premise his claim on statements by 

Bohannon and “other executives” without identifying specific statements made by 

specific persons.87 

Dunn also fails to allege when he was assured a long-term position. 

Pleading when the alleged misrepresentations occurred is especially

important where, as here, the alleged promises are of future 

performance ... . To defend against such assertions, a defendant

logically must be apprised when the alleged statements were made in

order to counter the assertion that it did not intend to keep its promise

at that time.88 

Dunn’s Complaint does not allege when Defendants promised him long-term 

employment. If Dunn’s Complaint is read chronologically, any assurances of a longterm position were made after Dunn executed the Second Employment Agreement.

89 

But Dunn’s brief describes these statements as “the promise that Dunn would remain 

employed by one of the FastMed Defendants following the closing, inducing him to 

 

84 Fortis, 2015 WL 401371, at *8. 

85 Compl. ¶ 75. 

86 Id. ¶ 24. 

87 See Fortis, 2015 WL 401371, at *8. 

88 Id. at *7. 

89 Compl. ¶¶ 22–26. 
28

sign the Second Agreement,” indicating his position that the assurances were made 

before or during the execution.90 Dunn’s claim for fraud under the Second 

Employment Agreement fails to apprise Defendants of when the alleged statements 

were made. 

As to both the Letter of Transmittal and the Second Employment Agreement, 

“the [C]omplaint makes no mention of where or by what means any of the 

misrepresentations were made.”91 The Complaint does not describe where (e.g., at 

Urgent Cares’ offices, FastMed’s offices, a mutual meeting place) or how (e.g., in 

person, by phone, by email) any of these representations occurred. As the Court 

pointed out in Fortis Advisors LLC v. Dialog Semiconductor PLC, 

[t]he lack of these details, in isolation, may not warrant dismissal under 

Rule 9(b). But when the lack of any such details is considered together

with the failure of the [C]omplaint to identify when any of the alleged 

misrepresentations were made and who made any of them, the 

complaint fails in my view to apprise [the Defendants] of sufficient 

information concerning the circumstances of the alleged fraud and thus 

does not satisfy the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b).92 

Dunn has failed to state a claim for fraud in the execution of the Letter of Transmittal 

and Second Employment Agreement under Rule 9(b). 

 

90 D.I. 16 at 16. 

91 Fortis, 2015 WL 401371, at *8. 

92 Id. 
29

3. Dunn Has Failed To State A Claim For Negligent 

Misrepresentation. 

Dunn has also failed to adequately plead the required elements of negligent 

misrepresentation. To state a negligent misrepresentation claim, Dunn must allege 

“(1) the defendant had a pecuniary duty to provide accurate information, (2) the 

defendant supplied false information, (3) the defendant failed to exercise reasonable 

care in obtaining or communicating the information, and (4) the plaintiff suffered a 

pecuniary loss caused by justifiable reliance upon the false information.”93 As a 

matter of law, promissory statements are insufficient to support a negligent 

misrepresentation claim.94 

Negligent misrepresentation, however, “cannot lie where the

underlying representations take the form of promises” because

promissory fraud requires an intentional or knowing act. That is

because the promise to honor an agreement is only a misrepresentation

if the promisor knows at the time of the promise that he will ultimately

breach; such a misrepresentation cannot occur unknowingly

or negligently.95

Dunn’s claim for negligent misrepresentation is based on Defendants’ promise to 

redraft the Restrictive Covenant at a later time.96 These promissory statements 

cannot sustain Dunn’s negligent misrepresentation claim. 

 

93 CHR Hldg. Corp., 2008 WL 963048, at *8 (citing Steinman, 2002 WL 31761252, at 

*15). 

94 Grunstein, 2009 WL 4698541, at *14. 

95 Id. (footnote omitted). 

96 Compl. ¶¶ 18, 67. 
30

In addition, Dunn’s negligent misrepresentation claim fails under Rule 9(b). 

Although a separate and distinct claim, negligent misrepresentation is closely related 

to fraud. “A claim of negligent misrepresentation, or equitable fraud, requires proof 

of all of the elements of common law fraud except that plaintiff need not demonstrate 

that the misstatement or omission was made knowingly or recklessly.”97 Both fraud 

and negligent misrepresentation require pleading with particularity under Rule 

9(b).98 If a plaintiff brings both fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims and

fails to plead his common law fraud claim with the requisite particularity, his

negligent misrepresentation claim must fail for the same reason.99 As discussed

above, Dunn has failed to adequately plead fraud premised on the Letter of

Transmittal under Rule 9(b). For those same reasons, Dunn’s negligent

misrepresentation claim is dismissed. 

 

97 Fortis, 2015 WL 401371, at *9 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also CHR Hldg. 

Corp., 2008 WL 963048, at *8 (noting negligent misrepresentation “is in essence a fraud 

claim with a reduced state of mind requirement”). 

98 See Zebroski v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 2014 WL 2156984, at *7 (Del. Ch. 

Apr. 30, 2014) (applying Rule 9(b) pleading standard to equitable fraud claim); Those 

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Nat’l Installment Ins. Servs., 2007 WL 

1207106, at *5 (Del. Ch. Feb. 8, 2007, revised Apr. 16, 2007) (“Court of Chancery Rule 

9(b) requires that fraud be pled with particularity. This rule almost certainly extends to 

negligent misrepresentation (equitable fraud) as well[.]”). 

99 See Fortis, 2015 WL 401371, at *9 (“Because [plaintiff] failed to plead its common law 

fraud claim with the requisite particularity, its negligent misrepresentation claim fails for 

the same reason.”). 
31

C. The Restrictive Covenant Does Not Violate Delaware’s Statute 

Encouraging The Unrestricted Practice Of Medicine.

Dunn seeks relief in the form of a declaratory judgment and injunction 

preventing Defendants from attempting to enforce the Restrictive Covenant. He 

argues the Restrictive Covenant violates 6 Del. C. § 2707, which provides:

Any covenant not to compete provision of an employment, partnership 

or corporate agreement between and/or among physicians which 

restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine in a particular 

locale and/or for a defined period of time, upon the termination of the 

principal agreement of which the said provision is a part, shall be void; 

except that all other provisions of such an agreement shall be 

enforceable at law, including provisions which require the payment of 

damages in an amount that is reasonably related to the injury suffered 

by reason of termination of the principal agreement. Provisions which 

require the payment of damages upon termination of the principal 

agreement may include, but not be limited to, damages related to 

competition.100

I conclude that because the term “practice medicine” in Section 2707 refers to a 

physician’s provision of medical services to patients in Delaware, the Letter of 

Transmittal does not restrict Dunn’s employment in a manner that violates Section 

2707. Counts One and Seven are dismissed. 

“The goal of statutory construction is to determine and give effect to 

legislative intent.”101 I “begin [my] analysis with the language of the statute 

 

100 6 Del. C. § 2707. 

101 Eliason v. Englehart, 733 A.2d 944, 946 (Del. 1999). 
32

itself.”102 The key wording describes an “agreement between and/or among 

physicians which restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine.”103 The 

statute does not define the phrase “to practice medicine,” and no party has provided 

any authority construing it. Few states have adopted similar legislation, and those 

states do not appear to have construed the phrase.104 

Other Delaware laws provide guidance. In a separate statute, the Medical 

Practice Act, the General Assembly defined “practice of medicine” or “practice 

medicine” as follows:105

a. Advertising, holding out to the public, or representing in any manner 

that one is authorized to practice medicine in this State;

b. Offering or undertaking to prescribe, order, give, or administer any 

drug or medicine for the use of another person;

c. Offering or undertaking to prevent or to diagnose, correct, and/or 

treat in any manner or by any means, methods, or devices a disease, 

illness, pain, wound, fracture, infirmity, defect, or abnormal physical or 

 

102 LeVan v. Indep. Mall, Inc., 940 A.2d 929, 933 (Del. 2007). 

103 6 Del. C. § 2707 (emphasis added). 

104 See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8–2–113(3), amended by Professions and Occupations Act, ch. 

136 (H.B. 19-1172) (amended 2019); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12X (2019); R.I. Gen. 

Laws § 5–37–33; see also Cent. Ind. Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger, 882 N.E.2d 723, 728 (Ind. 

2008) (identifying Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts as states having adopted 

“statutes prohibiting physician noncompetition agreements”). 

105 Section 2707 appears in general provisions relating to commerce and trade; it is not part

of the Medical Practice Act. See Franklin Fibre-Lamitex Corp. v. Dir. of Revenue, 505 

A.2d 1296, 1298 (Del. Super. Ct. 1985) (stating that where term was not defined in statute 

it is “permissible to look to related statutes and principles of statutory construction to 

determine its meaning” (footnote omitted)), aff’d, 511 A.2d 385 (Del. 1986). 
33

mental condition of another person, including the management of 

pregnancy and parturition;

d. Offering or undertaking to perform a surgical operation upon another 

person;

e. Rendering a written or otherwise documented medical opinion 

concerning the diagnosis or treatment of a person or the actual 

rendering of treatment to a person within the State by a physician 

located outside the State as a result of transmission of the person’s 

medical data by electronic or other means from within the State to the 

physician or to the physician’s agent;

f. Rendering a determination of medical necessity or a decision 

affecting or modifying the diagnosis and/or treatment of a person;

g. Using the designation Doctor, Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of 

Osteopathy, physician, surgeon, physician and surgeon, Dr., M.D., or 

D.O., or a similar designation, or any combination thereof, in the 

conduct of an occupation or profession pertaining to the prevention, 

diagnosis, or treatment of human disease or condition, unless the 

designation additionally contains the description of another branch of 

the healing arts for which one holds a valid license in the State.106

The definition concludes, “[f]or the purposes of this chapter, in order that the full 

resources of the State are available for the protection of persons using the services 

of physicians, the act of the practice of medicine occurs where a person is located 

at the time a physician practices medicine upon the person.”107 Thus, the

enumerated acts pertain to the provision of medical services or treatment within 

Delaware. 

 

106 24 Del. C. § 1702(12). 

107 Id. (emphasis added). 
34

Title 24, Section 1720 relatedly sets out Delaware’s “certification 

requirements to practice medicine.”108 Without meeting those requirements, the 

“person may not practice medicine in” Delaware.109 There is no indication that the 

General Assembly intended to regulate the practice of medicine in other states.110 

The dictionary complements these statutory definitions. Merriam-Webster 

defines “practice” as “to be professionally engaged in;”111 lists “practice medicine” 

as the relevant example;112 and defines “medicine” as “the science and art dealing 

with the maintenance of health and the prevention, alleviation, or cure of disease.”113 

In view of these sources, I conclude that the term “practice medicine” in 

Section 2707 refers to a physician’s provision of medical services or treatment to 

patients in Delaware. “Although the plain language of [Section 2707] is dispositive, 

the legislative history helpfully confirms the narrow construction.”114 The synopsis 

 

108 24 Del. C. § 1720. 

109 Id. § 1720(a). 

110 Id. § 1702(2) (“‘Certificate to practice medicine’ means the authorization awarded by 

the Board to a person who has been qualified to practice medicine in this State by meeting 

the requirements of this chapter.”). 

111 Practice, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/practice (last visited August 29, 2019).

112 Id. 

113 Medicine, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/medicine (last visited August 29, 2019). 

114 Agar v. Judy, 151 A.3d 456, 475 (Del. Ch. 2017); see also Bd. of Adjustment of Sussex 

Cty. v. Verleysen, 36 A.3d 326, 332 (Del. 2012) (“The most prevalent source of legislative 
35

for the bill that became Section 2707 explains: “Because patients establish 

relationships with their physicians and/or enter into courses of treatment with 

particular physicians, the patients should not be deprived of the services of the 

physician of their choice because of an economic contract entered into between two 

physicians.”115 Section 2707 does not contemplate injunctive enforcement of its 

restriction, but allows damages because damages do not “[a]ffect[] the doctor/patient 

relationship already established prior to the termination” of the agreement between 

the physicians.116 When sitting on the Superior Court, Vice Chancellor Slights stated 

that the General Assembly adopted Section 2707 in furtherance of “the importance 

of maintaining the continuity of care by protecting the physician-patient 

relationship.”117

Dunn does not plead that the Restrictive Covenant prevents him from 

providing medical services as a physician in any way that would provoke Section 

2707’s protections of the physician-patient relationship. Nor does he plead that his 

job with Banner Health would involve patient care, generally or in Delaware. 

Rather, Dunn only states, “Banner Health’s employment offer was a highly valuable 

 

history for a Delaware statute is the synopsis, which the Delaware Supreme Court has held 

is ‘a proper source for ascertaining legislative intent.’”).

115 Del. S.B. 294 syn., 132nd Gen. Assem. (Del. 1983). 

116 Id. 

117 Total Care Physicians, P.A. v. O’Hara, 2002 WL 31667901, at *6 (Del. Super. Ct. 

Oct. 29, 2002). 
36

and unique opportunity through which Dunn could utilize his expertise as Physician 

and Executive in operating urgent care services ... .”118 Thus, he only complains 

that the Restrictive Covenant prevented him from taking an executive position with 

Banner Health—a role that is in express contravention of the Letter of Transmittal, 

but not Section 2707. 

Further, Dunn can practice medicine without violating the terms of the 

Restrictive Covenant. The Letter of Transmittal expressly allows Dunn to be 

“employed as (and providing customary services of) a physician.”119 This carveout 

preserves Dunn’s ability to practice medicine. This exemption is consistent with the 

purpose of the Restrictive Covenant, which was part of a merger whereby FastMed 

paid $200 million for Urgent Care. The Restrictive Covenant protects FastMed and 

its investment in Urgent Care from Dunn (and others) competing with it in that 

business, not from Dunn seeing patients or providing medical treatment. Further, 

Dunn resides in Arizona, and is “licensed to conduct all medical services relevant to 

his issued license in the state of Arizona.”120 He does not plead that he ever offered, 

performed, or was licensed to provide any medical services in Delaware or that his 

job offer from Banner Health involved him doing so. 

 

118 Compl. ¶ 52 (emphasis added). 

119 Id. ¶ 21. 

120 Id. ¶ 10. 
37

Thus, even giving Dunn the benefit of every reasonable inference, it is not 

reasonably conceivable that Section 2707 invalidates the Restrictive Covenant.121 

Section 2707 is meant to protect physician–patient relationships within Delaware by 

prohibiting restrictions on the practice of medicine in Delaware. Dunn is not a 

Delaware physician and is not precluded from practicing medicine under the 

Restrictive Covenant. Dunn’s Restrictive Covenant does not violate Section

 

121 Dunn argues the Court should not decide this issue now because “whether or not [the 

Banner Health] job constituted such practice is admittedly a factual question.” D.I. 16 at 

20. He relies on Bakotic v. Bako Pathology LP, 2018 WL 6601172 (Del. Super. Ct. 

Dec. 10, 2018). But that case does not involve any clear carveout to allow the physicians 

to provide physician services. 
38

2707.122 Dunn asserts no other grounds for concluding the Restrictive Covenant is 

unenforceable. 123 Counts One and Seven are dismissed.124

 

122 The parties sparred over whether Section 2707 would violate the Commerce Clause of 

the United States Constitution if it were applied to physicians in other states. See D.I. 20 

at 16–19; D.I. 23 at 21–24; see also Healy v. Beer Inst., Inc., 491 U.S. 324, 336–37 (1989) 

(stating courts must analyze “how the challenged statute may interact with the legitimate 

regulatory regimes of other States and what effect would arise if not one, but many or 

every, State adopted similar legislation” and that “[g]enerally speaking, the Commerce 

Clause protects against inconsistent legislation arising from the projection of one state 

regulatory regime into the jurisdiction of another State”); Klig v. Deloitte LLP, 36 A.3d 

785, 797–98 (Del. Ch. 2011) (“Nor is there any basis to think that Delaware could enforce 

its vision of appropriate employment law regulation within New York’s territory . . . . 

Under our federal system of co-equal state sovereigns, Delaware can readily regulate 

within its borders, but cannot regulate the wages of an individual working in another state, 

outside of Delaware’s jurisdiction.”). I do not reach the Constitutional question. The Court 

is to avoid constitutional issues if feasible. See Downs v. Jacobs, 272 A.2d 706, 708 (Del. 

1970) (“It is the settled policy of this Court that a constitutional question will not be decided 

unless its determination is essential to the disposition of the case.”); accord Snell v. 

Engineered Sys. & Designs, Inc., 1994 WL 672680, at *1 (Del. Ch. Nov. 18, 1994) (“[T]his 

Court should avoid deciding Constitutional questions if other means of disposing of a case 

are available.”), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 669 A.2d 13 (Del. 1995); Crisco v. Bd. of Educ. 

of Indian River Sch. Dist., 1988 WL 90821, at *7 n.1 (Del. Ch. Aug. 29, 1988) (“I decline 

to reach the constitutional claim because it is not essential to the disposition of this case.”). 

Dunn’s Restrictive Covenant does not fall within the ambit of Section 2707 because it does 

not prohibit his practice of medicine. Those grounds alone are sufficient to resolve the 

issue before the Court. 

123 My analysis of Dunn’s invocation of Section 2707 does not reach the issue of whether 

the Restrictive Covenant is enforceable in view of broader Delaware law or Arizona public 

policy. See generally NuVasive, Inc. v. Miles, 2019 WL 4010814 (Del. Ch. Aug. 26, 2019). 

124 Count One seeks injunctive relief, asking the Court to enjoin the enforcement of the 

Restrictive Covenant. Compl. ¶ 53–56, b. Count One must be dismissed on two grounds. 

First, because the Court concludes that the Restrictive Covenant is enforceable over Dunn’s 

sole argument, based on Section 2707, Dunn’s request for injunctive relief cannot be 

granted. Second, “[i]njunctions are a form of relief, not a cause of action.” Quadrant 

Structured Prods. Co., Ltd. v. Vertin, 102 A.3d 155, 203 (Del. Ch. 2014). Therefore, “[a]s 

a technical matter,” Count One is dismissed because it seeks a “remed[y] rather than 

assert[s] claims.” Id.
39

D. Dunn Fails To Adequately Allege Intentional Interference With A 

Contractual Relationship. 

Dunn argues Defendants intentionally interfered with his prospective 

contractual relationship with Banner Health by threatening to enforce the Restrictive 

Covenant.

125 He claims that the “Defendants knew or should have known that [the] 

statements [to Banner Health] were false, given the unenforceability of the noncompete clause.”126 “A claim for tortious interference with contract requires a 

showing that: ‘(1) there was a contract, (2) about which the particular defendant 

knew, (3) an intentional act that was a significant factor in causing the breach of 

contract, (4) the act was without justification, and (5) it caused injury.’”127 

Defendants attack the fourth element on the ground that their interference was proper 

and justified.128 A plaintiff does not state a claim for improper interference where 

the alleged improper action is “within [the defendant’s] contractual rights.”129 

 

125 Compl. ¶¶ 82–87. 

126 D.I. 16 at 21. 

127 Himawan v. Cephalon, Inc., 2018 WL 6822708, at *9 (Del. Ch. Dec. 28, 2018) (quoting 

WaveDivision Hldgs., LLC v. Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P., 49 A.3d 1168, 1174 (Del. 

2012)). Dunn does not frame this claim as relating to prospective relations. The Court 

adopts his framing. 

128 D.I. 12 at 23 (“Here, FastMed Defendants had the legitimate and justifiable motive of 

enforcing the benefit of their bargain with regard to the five-year covenant not to compete. 

Under such circumstances, Dunn cannot show an improper motive, nor does he allege 

any.”). 

129 Chapter 7 Tr. Constantino Flores v. Strauss Water Ltd., 2016 WL 5243950, at *12 (Del. 

Ch. Sept. 22, 2016) (concluding claim was not well-pled where defendant acted within its 

contractual rights); see also Darius Int’l, Inc. v. Young, 2008 WL 1820945, at *48 (E.D. 
40

Dunn argues Defendants’ assertion of the Restrictive Covenant was improper

because Defendants knew, or should have known, that it was unenforceable under 

Section 2707.130 According to Dunn, Defendants improperly threatened Banner 

Health with an agreement Defendants knew was not enforceable. As described 

above, Section 2707 does not render the Restrictive Covenant unenforceable. Dunn 

asserts no other basis for unenforceability, and therefore, no other basis for 

concluding Defendants wielded the Restrictive Covenant improperly. Because 

asserting the Restrictive Covenant was “within [the Defendants’] contractual rights,” 

Dunn’s claim for intentional interference is dismissed.

131

E. Dunn’s Defamation Per Se Claim Must Be Dismissed For Lack Of 

Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

Dunn’s defamation per se claim asserts that Defendants falsely stated to 

Banner Health that employing Dunn would violate the Restrictive Covenant.132 

 

Pa. Apr. 23, 2008) (ruling party’s actions were justified where it 

“merely enforced a non-competition agreement that it believed in good faith was valid”). 

130 Compl. ¶ 86 (“Defendants acted improperly by attempting to apply a restrictive 

covenant that Dunn was not subject to, and notifying Banner Health to the effect of 

interfering with his future employment with Banner Health.”); D.I. 16 at 16 (“Defendants 

knew, or should have known, that the five-year non-compete clause in the [Letter of 

Transmittal] was unenforceable under the circumstances.”). 

131 See Strauss Water Ltd., 2016 WL 5243950, at *12 (“[Plaintiff] [i]s required to plead 

that [the] alleged interference was somehow improper.”). 

132 Compl. ¶¶ 101–02. 
41

Even assuming Dunn had stated a claim for defamation,133 the claim must be 

dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim. “Equitable 

jurisdiction is a predicate issue for every matter in this court of limited 

jurisdiction.”134 The Court has a duty to determine whether it has the jurisdiction to 

hear Dunn’s claim and can raise the jurisdictional issue sua sponte.

135 An 

independent claim for defamation does not fall within the purview of Chancery’s 

equitable jurisdiction because “equity will not enjoin a libel.”136 

In view of this Court’s limited ability to redress common-law torts, as well as 

this Court’s inability to sanction a party solely for speech, defamation—and 

specifically its subcategories of libel and slander—“are seen as denizens of the 

Superior Court, and are subject to the findings made there by juries regarding the 

 

133 The Court need not and cannot determine whether Dunn has stated a claim for 

defamation per se because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Such a 

determination must be made in the appropriate court of law. 

134 Preston Hollow Capital, LLC v. Nuveen, LLC, 2019 WL 3801471, at *4 (Del. Ch. 

Aug. 13, 2019) (citing Athene Life & Annuity Co. v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 2019 WL 

3451376 (Del. Ch. July 31, 2019)).

135 See, e.g., Ct. Ch. R. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or 

otherwise that the Court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the Court shall dismiss the 

action.”); Envo, Inc. v. Walters, 2009 WL 5173807, at *4 n.10 (Del. Ch. Dec. 30, 2009)

(“The issue of subject matter jurisdiction is so crucial that it may be raised at any time 

before final judgment and by the court sua sponte.”), aff’d, No. 460, 2012, 2013 WL 

1283533 (Del. Mar. 28, 2013) (TABLE). 

136 Preston Hollow, 2019 WL 3801471, at *9 (interpreting J.C. Pitman & Sons, Inc. v. 

Pitman, 7 A.2d 721 (Del. Ch. 1946)); Organovo Hldgs., Inc. v. Dimitrov, 162 A.3d 102, 

115 (Del. Ch. 2017). 
42

speech of their peers.”137 The boundaries of Chancery’s jurisdiction in this area have 

been carefully drawn, with only one narrow exception surviving the maxim that 

equity will not enjoin a libel.138 

The “trade libel” exception was first established in J.C. Pitman & Sons, Inc. 

v. Pitman.

139 Pitman recognized that, while courts will not enjoin “mere trade 

libels,” when “a court of equity has jurisdiction on some other ground, the American 

courts will also usually enjoin the continued publication of a trade libel incident 

thereto.”140 If the claim falls within Pitman’s ambit, this Court may exercise its 

jurisdiction to enjoin “trade libel,” “a libelous statement to consumers that falsely 

disparages a plaintiff’s goods or services.”141 But if the Pitman trade libel exception 

does not apply, then the claim for defamation must be dismissed or transferred to a 

court of law. 

In Organovo Holdings, Inc. v. Dimitrov, Vice Chancellor Laster determined 

that Pitman’s trade libel exception did not apply where a plaintiff failed to state a 

claim that would otherwise invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, in that case tortious 

 

137 Preston Hollow, 2019 WL 3801471, at *1. 

138 See Pitman, 47 A.2d at 726. 

139 Id. at 725–26. 

140 Id. at 725 (emphasis added) 

141 Preston Hollow, 2019 WL 3801471, at *2. 
43

interference with prospective economic advantage.142 Assuming for purposes of the 

analysis that the complaint pled trade libel, the Court “recognized that a request for 

equitable remedies for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage 

can provide the requisite basis for equitable jurisdiction that can justify a related 

injunction against future speech.”143 But because the plaintiff’s complaint failed to 

state a claim for tortious interference, the Court found that the complaint “cannot 

provide a route to an injunction against defamatory statements that are part of a 

larger trade libel. It consequently cannot provide a basis for subject matter 

jurisdiction.”144 If the plaintiff fails to plead an independent tort claim warranting 

an anti-speech injunction, and if that claim is consequently dismissed, then 

Organovo governs and the trade libel exception cannot confer subject matter 

jurisdiction over the defamation claim. 

Assuming for purposes of this analysis that Dunn has pled trade libel, Dunn’s 

claim for defamation per se falls beyond Pitman’s narrow scope. Although Dunn 

brought independent claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and international 

interference with contractual relationship, these claims have been dismissed, and all 

that remains is a defamation claim. Thus, nothing remains to “invoke[e] the 

 

142 Organovo Hldgs., 162 A.3d at 123. 

143 Id. at 122. 

144 Id. at 123. 
44

application of equity to a wrong other than ‘mere’ defamation.”145 Without an 

independently and adequately pled tort claim, there is no basis for an equitable 

remedy that would only “incidentally” enjoin Defendants’ speech. Because the 

remainder of Dunn’s claims have been dismissed, Dunn can only ask this Court to

do two things: (1) simply enjoin a libel, which it cannot do, and (2) award damages 

for the claim, a legal remedy that, without additional grist for the mill of equity, 

cannot be fashioned by this Court. Dunn’s claim falls squarely within Organovo, 

and must be dismissed. 

“As discussed at length above, this Court is without jurisdiction to determine 

whether slander has occurred here. In such a case, a plaintiff may generally transfer 

the matter to a court of law.”146 Dunn seeks both an injunction and damages for his 

defamation claim.147 As exemplified by Vice Chancellor Slights in Perlman v. Vox 

Media, Inc., where a plaintiff seeks both damages and injunctive relief for a 

 

145 Preston Hollow, 2019 WL 3801471, at *9 (citing Organovo, 162 A.3d at 123). 

146 Id. at *10. 

147 Dunn asserts that Defendants’ alleged defamatory statements “caused Dunn to be 

damaged in an amount to be determined at trial,” Compl. ¶ 105, and further seeks 

“compensatory damages against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial,” id. ¶ c. In 

addition, Dunn seeks “an injunction precluding Defendants from contacting Dunn, Banner 

Health, and any future employers of Dunn in regard to the improper application of the 

alleged restrictive covenant.” Id. ¶ b. 
45

defamation claim, the matter should be transferred to Superior Court.148 If Dunn 

wishes to pursue his claim for damages from defamation per se, he may elect to 

transfer the claim to the Superior Court by filing an election of transfer within sixty 

days under Section 1902.149 

F. Dunn Has Not Adequately Pled Civil Conspiracy. 

Finally, Dunn alleges that the “Defendants had an agreement to ... 

fraudulently induce Dunn to surrender his Profits Interest Units and confine Dunn’s 

future employability in his chosen field.”150 Dunn must plead three elements to state 

a claim for civil conspiracy: “(1) a confederation or combination of two or more 

persons; (2) an unlawful act done in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (3) actual 

damage.”151 The second element makes clear that “[c]ivil conspiracy “is not an 

 

148 2019 WL 2647520, at *4, *7 (Del. Ch. June 27, 2019) (determining that defamation 

claim for which plaintiff sought both an injunction and damages should be transferred to 

Superior Court). 

149 See 10 Del. C. § 1902 (“No civil action, suit or other proceeding brought in any court 

of this State shall be dismissed solely on the ground that such court is without jurisdiction 

of the subject matter, either in the original proceeding or on appeal. Such proceeding may 

be transferred to an appropriate court for hearing and determination, provided that the party 

otherwise adversely affected, within 60 days after the order denying the jurisdiction of the 

first court has become final, files in that court a written election of transfer ... .”). 

150 Compl. ¶ 89. 

151 AeroGlobal Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Cirrus Indus., Inc., 871 A.2d 428, 437 n.8 (Del. 

2005). 
46

independent cause of action; it must be predicated on an underlying wrong.”152 

Because Dunn’s other claims fail, his civil conspiracy claim also fails.

III. CONCLUSION153

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, 

with Count Eight subject to transfer to Superior Court. Once Dunn makes his 

election on Count Eight, the parties shall submit a conforming order.

 

152 Kuroda v. SPJS Hldgs., L.L.C., 971 A.2d 872, 892 (Del. Ch. 2009) (citation omitted). 

153 Bohannon requested that if the complaint is “not dismissed in its entirety” that the Court 

analyze whether it should be dismissed as to him for separate reasons. D.I. 12 at 26–27. 

Because of the above analysis, I need not consider those reasons.