U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

N O R T H E R N D I S T R I C T O F T E X A S

D A L L A S D I V I S I O N

P R O X I H E A L T H C A R E S T A F F I N G

E E C d / b / a P R O X I D E N T A L

STAFFING

§

§

§

§ C I V I L A C T I O N N O . 3 : 2 2 - C V - 2 5 5 3 - S

V . §

§

CURATIVE TALENT, EEC §

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N A N D O R D E R

This Order addresses Plaintiff Proxi Healthcare Staffing EEC d/b/a Proxi Dental Staffi

Motion for Eeave to File Its Third Amended Complaint (“Motion”) [ECF No. 31]. Having

reviewed and considered the Motion, Defendant Curative Talent, EEC’s Response to Plaintiffs

Motion for Eeave to File Its Third Amended Complaint (“Response”) [ECF No. 37], Plaintiffs

Reply in Support of Its Motion for Leave to File Its Third Amended Complaint (“Reply”) [ECF

No. 46], and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the

Motion.

I . B A C K G R O U N D

On December 13, 2021, Plaintiff Proxi Healthcare Staffing EEC d/b/a Proxi Dent

Staffing and either Defendant Curative Talent, EEC, or Curative’s parent company, Doximit

Inc., executed aLetter of Intent related to Proxi’s acquisition of Curative’s “Dentistry Service

Line.” PL’s Second Am. Pet. (“Petition”) [ECF No. 18] T| 7; PL’s Third Am. Compl. [ECF No. 31-

1]1 28. The Dentistry Service Line “consisted of ‘locum tenens’ (temporary) dentistry staffi

contracts, permanent placement search contracts related to dentistry, and executive search

contracts related to dentistry.” Pet. T[ 7. Following execution of the Letter of Intent, Proxi worked

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 1 of 17 PageID 542
with Curative, Doximity, and Curative’s legal counsel to review the business, perform due

diligence, and finalize apurchase agreement. I

On February 4, 2022, Proxi and Curative entered into the Asset and Purchase Agreement

(“Agreement”), pursuant to which Proxi agreed to purchase the Dentistry Service Line for

$850,000.' Id. Proxi agreed to pay this amount based on representations made through Salesforce

and NetSuite reports, other Salesforce records related to Curative’s dentistry business, and verbal

assurances regarding dental locum tenens gross profits. Id. 8. However, Curative allegedly fail

to disclose that one of its most profitable locum tenens dentists (“Dr. P”) had been cancelled fr

54 out of 64 of the shifts he was supposed to work between February 7, 2022, and May 20, 2022.

Id. ^9. The client to which Dr. Pwas assigned sent Curative acancellation notice for Dr. P’s shifts

the day after the parties executed the Letter of Intent. Id. The cancelled shifts remained in

'confirmed” status in Curative’s Salesforce system. Id. And Curative represented that Dr. Pw

still confirmed for the shifts in Section 1.4(g) of the Agreement. Id.-, see also PL’s Third A

CompL, Ex. A(“Agreemenf’) [ECF No. 31 -1 ]T| 1.4(g). Proxi did not learn about the cancellations

until February 22, 2022. Pet. ^9.

Proxi alleges that Curative also withheld adentistry executive search from the sale. Id.

T111. The contract value of the search was $50,000. Id. Of that $50,000, $15,000 belonged to

Curative, and the remaining $35,000 was to transfer to Proxi. Id. Curative allegedly hid the search

from Proxi prior to the sale by mislabeling it in Salesforce. Id. According to Proxi, Curative

intentionally concealed the nature of this search in their Salesforce system with the knowledge

that Proxi was combing through [Salesforce] to pull out all the dentistry contracts as stipulated by

’Although the Agreement lists Curative as the Seller, Proxi notes that Doximity filed aTax Form 85

(Asset Acquisition Statement) listing Doximity as the entity that sold the assets to Proxi. Mot. 3.

2

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 2 of 17 PageID 543
the Agreement.” Id. Proxi did not learn about this search until hours after it signed the Agreement

and wired the purchase price to Curative. Id. T| 12.

Proxi claims that if it had known about the shift cancellations and the withheld search, it

would have offered $601,849 for the Dentistry Service Line instead of $850,000. Id. T| 13. Proxi

allegedly also suffered opportunity costs in the amount of $79,749. Id. As aresult, Proxi filed su

against Curative on October 5, 2022. See PL’s Original Pet. [ECF No. 1-1]. Proxi has since fil

its First Amended Petition [ECF No. 6] and Second Amended Petition [ECF No. 18]. Proxi did

not seek to add claims against Doximity through prior amendments.

Curative filed its Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complai

[ECF No. 21]. In response, Proxi filed the Motion, in which it seeks leave to amend its Complai

athird time. Mot. 3. The proposed Third Amended Complaint [ECF No. 31-1] adds Doximity as

adefendant and includes more factual detail than the Second Amended Petition. In the proposed

Third Amended Complaint, Proxi asserts claims for negligent misrepresentation, breach of

contract, fraudulent inducement, and alter ego against both Defendants. Third Am. Compl. 73-

103.

I I . L E G A L S T A N D A R D

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows aparty to amend its pleading once as a

matter of course. After that, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written

consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. ClV. P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave [to

amend] when justice so requires.” Id. While granting leave to amend is “by no means automatic,'

Wimm V. Jack Eckerd Corp., 3F.3d 137, 139 (5th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted), “pleading is [not]

agame of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome,” Hall v. Nat 7

Gypsum Co., 105 F.3d 225,230 (5th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). The Court considers five matte

3

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 3 of 17 PageID 544
in determining whether to grant leave to amend: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or dilatory motive,

(3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, (4) undue prejudice to t

opposing party, and (5) futility of the amendment. SGIC Strategic Glob. Inv. Cap., Inc. v. Burger

KingEur. GmbH, 839 F.3d 422, 428 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).

I I I . A N A L Y S I S

Curative opposes Proxi’s Motion only on the grounds that the proposed amendment would

be futile. An amendment is futile if “the amended complaint would fail to state aclaim upon which

relief could be granted.” Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., 234 F.3d 863, 873 (5th Cir. 2000) (citation

omitted). To determine futility, courts “apply the same standard of legal sufficiency as appli

under Rule 12(b)(6).” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To pass muster under

Rule 12(b)(6), aplaintiff must plead enough facts to state aclaim for relief that is plausible on its

face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle,

517 F.3d 738, 742 (5th Cir. 2008). This “facial plausibility” standard requires aplaintiff to “plead[]

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). The

court must accept well-pleaded facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff. Sonnier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 509 F.3d 673, 675 (5th Cir. 2007). However, the

court does not accept as true “conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal

conclusions.” Ferrer v. Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).

A. Claims Against Doximity

In the Third Amended Complaint, Proxi adds negligent misrepresentation, breach of

contract, and fraudulent inducement claims against Doximity both directly and as the alter ego of

Curative. Third Am. Compl. 73-103. Curative argues that the Court should not grant Proxi leave

4

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 4 of 17 PageID 545
to amend its Complaint to add these claims because Doximity is not subject to the Court’s personal

jurisdiction and because Proxi fails to state aclaim against Doximity. Resp. 1. The Court declines

to reach the issue of personal jurisdiction at this jimcture but agrees that Proxi does not plausibly

allege claims against Doximity.

i. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Curative first argues that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Doximity. Id. at 2. B

personal jurisdiction “is apersonal defense that can be waived. As such, the defense ordinarily

cannot be raised by anyone but the defendant himself.” Ntakirutimana v. Cmty. Health Sys. Inc.,

No. L-09-114, 2012 WL 12894294, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2012) (citation omitted); see also

Zufelt V. Isuzu Motors Am., L.C.C., 727 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1131 (D.N.M. 2009) (“The personaljurisdiction analysis is fact-intensive. Typically, when there is amotion to dismiss for lack of

personal jurisdiction, there are affidavits and other evidence.” (internal citation omitted)). T

Court will consider any challenges to personal jurisdiction if and when they are raised by the party

contesting personal jurisdiction.

a . F a i l u r e t o S t a t e a C l a i m

The remainder of Curative’s arguments relate to whether the proposed Third Amended

Complaint states aclaim against Doximity. The Court turns first to Proxi’s cause of action for alt

ego liability. Third Am. Compl. 102-03. As an initial matter, “[ajlter ego is not aclaim or

independent cause of action—it is aremedy to enforce aclaimed substantive right.” U.S. Bank

Nat’lAss’n v. Verizon Commc’ns Inc., No. 3:10-CV-1842-G, 2012 WL 3100778, at *16 (N.D.

Tex. July 31, 2012) (citing, among other sources, W. Oil &Gas JV, Inc. v. Griffiths, 91 F. App

901, 903-04 (5th Cir. 2003)). Therefore, to the extent Proxi intends to assert alter ego as acause

5

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 5 of 17 PageID 546
of action rather than as abasis for Doximity’s liability for Curative’s acts, the Court concludes that

it would be futile to allow Proxi to amend its Complaint to add such aclaim.

The Court now turns to Proxi’s general allegation that Doximity is the alter ego of Curative,

as this allegation forms the basis of many of Proxi’s arguments in support of its proposed

amendment. Concluding that Proxi does not adequately allege that Doximity is liable as Curative’s

alter ego, the Court considers whether Proxi states claims directly against Doximity.

a. Alter Ego

In diversity cases, federal district courts apply the choice-of-law rules of the forum state.

Safeco Ins. Co. ofind. v. Nidec Motor Corp., No. 4:20-CV-00183-ALM, 2021 WL 134099, at 

(E.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2021) (citation omitted). “Under Texas’s choice-of-law rules, whether a

corporation, EEC, or individual may be held liable pursuant to aveil-piercing theory is determined

by the law of the state in which the entity is organized.” Ogbonna v. USPLabs, LLC, No. EP-13-

CV-347-KC, 2014 WL 2592097, at *5 (W.D. Tex. June 10, 2014) (citing, among other sources,

Alberto v. Diversified Grp., Inc., 55 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 1995)); see also Greathouse v. Ca

Plus Fin. LLC, No. 4:22-CV-0686-P, 2023 WL 5759250, at *11 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 6,2023) (“Where

the claim seeks to hold aparent company liable for the obligations of asubsidiary, the subsidiary’s

state of incorporation provides the applicable law.” (citation omitted)). Proxi’s pleadings regarding

Curative’s state of organization have been inconsistent; however, per the Agreement, Curative is

aTexas limited liability company. Agreement 1.^ Therefore, Texas alter ego law applies.^

^As stated above, the Court analyzes futility under the Rule 12(b)(6) legal sufficiency standard. Wh

conducting aRule 12(b)(6) analysis, the Court may consider “any documents attached to the complaint.”

Lone Star Fund V(U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

Therefore, the Court considers the Agreement, which Proxi attached as Exhibit Ato its proposed Third

Amended Complaint.

^The Court notes that neither party briefed the issue of which state’s law applies. And “cases are unclear

as to which corporation’s law to apply.” Ace Am. Ins. Co. v. Huntsman Corp., 255 F.R.D. 179, 195 (S.D.

6

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 6 of 17 PageID 547
'Under Texas law the alter ego doctrine allows the imposition of liability on acorporation

for the acts of another corporation when the subject corporation is organized or operated as amere

tool or business conduit.” Gardemal v. Westin Hotel Co., 186 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 1999)

(citation omitted). “Disregarding the corporate structure involves two considerations.” SSP

Partners v. Gladstrong Invs. (USA) Corp., 275 S.W.3d 444, 455 (Tex. 2008). The first is t

relationship between the two entities. Id. In analyzing this prong, courts consider factors including

'common employees; common offices; centralized accounting; payment of wages by o

corporation to another corporation’s employees; common business name; services rendered by the

employees of one corporation on behalf of another corporation; undocumented transfers of funds

between corporations; and unclear allocation of profits and losses between corporation

Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Taylor Rental Ctr., 712 S.W.2d 534, 536 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref dn.r.e.) (citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds by SSP Partners,

275 S.W.3d 444. The second is “whether the entities’ use of limited liability was illegitimate.” SSP

Partners, 275 S.W.3d at 455. This consideration requires allegations that “the corporate form has

been used as part of abasically unfair device to achieve an inequitable result,” such as to

“perpetuate afraud, evade an existing obligation, achieve or perpetuate amonopoly, circumvent a

statute, protect acrime, or justify wrong.” Al Rushaid v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, Inc., 757 F.3d 416,

424 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting SSP Partners, 275 S.W.3d at 451).

Turning first to the relationship between Doximity and Curative, Proxi allege

(1) Doximity and Curative share certain shareholders, officers, directors, and/or employees'

Tex. 2008). However, even if Delaware law applied, as Delaware is Doximity’s state of incorporation, the

Court would reach the same conclusion. Delaware law requires aplaintiff pleading alter ego to allege “some

fraud, injustice, or inequity in the use of the corporate fonn.” Safeco, 2021 WL 134099, at *4 (citation

omitted). For the reasons stated below, Proxi does not adequately allege fraud, injustice, or inequity.

'' The only overlapping employee identified in the Third Amended Complaint is David Coffman, “VP 

Finance at both Doximity and Curative.” Third Am. Compl. ^36.

7

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 7 of 17 PageID 548
(2) Doximity and Curative share the same three managing members; (3) Doximity provides

Curative’s operating capital; (4) Doximity’s officers and directors may determine Curative

policies; (5) Doximity and Curative have centralized accounting; (6) Doximity and Curative have

acentralized human resources department; (7) Doximity employees “were integral to the

negotiation and finalizing of’ the Agreement; (8) Doximity pays stock options to Curati

employees; (9) Curative has rendered unidentified “[sjervices' on Doximity’s behal

(10) Doximity leases the building out of which Curative operates; and (11) Doximity represented

itself as the seller of the Dentistry Service Line on atax form. Third Am. Compl. 2, 102. These

allegations, many of which have no factual support, do not adequately demonstrate the degree of

assimilation necessary for alter ego liability. See, e.g., USHealth Grp., Inc. v. South, 636 F. App’x

194,202 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Under [Texas] law,... the corporation must have exercised such control

over the subsidiary that it is clear the two entities have abandoned their separate corporate

identities.” (citation omitted)).

But even if Proxi adequately alleged that the relationship between Doximity and Curative

justifies holding Doximity liable, the parties did not meaningfully brief the issue of illegitima

use of limited liability. Proxi alleges in conclusory fashion that “Curative is simply amere business

conduit for Doximity” and that “[t]he separate identities of these entities must be disregarded ...

to prevent use of the corporate fiction as an unfair device to inflict an injustice on Proxi, an

avoid any responsibility for the damages sustained by Proxi herein.” Third Am. Compl. 1102. The

only factual allegations Proxi appears to use to support its argument are the assertions that

Doximity was involved in the alleged misconduct and that Doximity filed atax form listing itse

as the seller of the Dentistry Service Line. Without more, these allegations are insufficien

Therefore, the Court concludes that Proxi has not plausibly alleged that Doximity is the alter ego

8

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 8 of 17 PageID 549
of Curative, and the Court will analyze only whether Proxi’s proposed Third Amended Complaint

states claims against Doximity directly.

b. Breach of Contract and Fraudulent Inducement

Texas law requires privity of contract to assert abreach of contract claim, meaning anonparty to acontract typically cannot be sued for breach of that contract.” Fid. Funding Bus. Credit,

LTDv. Republic Bus. CreditLLC,m. 3:16-CV-2492-B, 2017 WL 4923880, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct.

30, 2017) (citing Chico Auto Parts &Serv., Inc. v. Crockett, 512 S.W.3d 560, 569 (Tex. App.

El Paso 2017, pet. denied)). However, “traditional principles of state law ...allow acontract to

be enforced by or against nonparties to the contract through assumption, piercing the corporate

veil, alter ego, incorporation by reference, third-party beneficiary theories, waiver and estoppe

Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., 921 F.3d 522, 531 (5th Cir. 2019)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As the Court previously determined, Proxi cannot

enforce its contract with Curative against Doximity under an alter ego theory. Proxi argues that

the Court should disregard the plain language of the Agreement and find that Doximity was apar

to the Agreement because Doximity “sign[ed] the Letter of Intent, employ[ed] its executives to

negotiate the [Agreement],” and filed aform with the Internal Revenue Service “identif[ying] itse

as the ‘seller’ under the ... Agreement.” Reply 9. Proxi cites no legal authority in support of this

argument, and the Court finds no basis for holding Doximity—a non-party to the Agreementliable for breach of contrac

This conclusion is also fatal to Proxi’s fraudulent inducement claim against Doximity. As

Proxi itself argues, “Proxi’s proposed Third Amended Complaint is clear—the fraudulent

inducement claim is based upon justifiably relied upon fraudulent statements contained in the ..

Agreement.” Reply U-12; see also id. at 12 (reiterating that the fraudulent inducement claim is

9

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 9 of 17 PageID 550
not based on “statements made outside of the ... Agreement.”). Because Doximity was not aparty

to the Agreement and cannot be held liable as Curative’s alter ego, allowing Proxi to amend to add

either abreach of contract or fraudulent inducement claim against Doximity would be futile.

c. Negligent Misrepresentation

Proxi also carmot maintain aclaim against Doximity for negligent misrepresentation. The

misrepresentation Proxi challenges is the statement that “Dr. Pwas currently on assignment and

was scheduled to work through May 20, 2022.” Third Am. Compl. ]| 74. However, Proxi never

coimects Doximity to this statement. Instead, Proxi alleges that Curative’s agent countersigned the

notice that Dr. P’s shifts were cancelled. Curative’s Salesforce database indicated that Dr. Pwas

scheduled to work, and the Agreement—between Proxi and Curative—stated that Dr. Pwas on

assignment and scheduled to work. See id. 30, 37, 40. Proxi also relies on abest efforts and

good faith clause contained in the Agreement. Id. ^43. Nowhere does Proxi identify a

misrepresentation made by Doximity.

In sum, because the proposed Third Amended Complaint fails to state aclaim against

Doximity upon which relief could be granted, the Court concludes that it would be futile to permit

Proxi to amend its Complaint to add Doximity as adefendant.

B. Claims Against Curative

The Court turns next to Proxi’s claims against Curative. Curative argues that Proxi’s Third

Amended Complaint fails to state aclaim for negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and

fraudulent inducement. Resp. 10-23. The Court disagrees.

i. Negligent Misrepresentation

Under Texas law, aclaim for negligent misrepresentation has four elements; (1) the

defendant made arepresentation in the course of its business or in atransaction in which it had a

10

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 10 of 17 PageID 551
pecuniary interest; (2) the defendant supplied false information for the guidance of others in their

business; (3) the defendant did not exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or

communicating the information; and (4) the plaintiff suffered pecuniary loss by justifiably relyi

on the representation. Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp. v. Posey, 415 F.3d 391, 395-96 (5th Cir. 2005)

(quoting Clardy Mfg. Co. v. Marine Midland Bus. Loans, Inc., 88 F.3d 347, 357 (5th Cir. 1996)).

Curative argues that Proxi does not adequately allege the fourth element, justifiable reliance, a

that, regardless, Proxi’s claim is barred by the economic loss rule. Resp. 10, 13.

According to Curative, Proxi could not have justifiably relied on any alleg

misrepresentations because the Agreement contains disclaimer of reliance clauses. Those clauses

disclaim reliance on statements “other than those embodied in this Agreement.” Resp. 11 (quoting

Agreement 17.9); see also id. at 12 (quoting Agreement ^7.10). As further support for this

argument. Curative points to amerger clause, which states that the Agreement “supersedes all

previous understandings and agreements between the parties” and that the parties “have not relied

on any representation ...except those set out in this Agreement.” Resp. 12 (emphasis omitted)

(quoting Agreement T|7.14). But Proxi’s claims are based at least in part on alleged

misrepresentations contained in the Agreement. Specifically, Proxi challenges the statement in t

Agreement that Dr. P“is currently on assignment[] and is scheduled to work through May 20th,

2022.” Reply 14 (quoting Agreement f1.4(g)); see also Third Am. Compl. |74. Therefore, to the

extent Proxi relies on statements made in the Agreement, the disclaimers of reliance and merger

clause do not preclude justifiable relianc

Next, Curative argues that Proxi could not have justifiably relied on any statement abo

Dr. P’s current schedule because the Agreement provides that Curative made no warranty or

guarantee regarding its invoicing system and that Proxi assumed all risk from the process without

11

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 11 of 17 PageID 552
exception. Resp. 13 (quoting Agreement 11.4(g)). But this argument, which focuses on aprovision

governing billing for Dr. P’s work, ignores the content of Proxi’s negligent misrepresentation

claim. Proxi claims that Curative misrepresented that Dr. Pwas scheduled to work and that Proxi

paid the amount of money it did in reliance on the representation that Dr. Pwas scheduled. At the

pleadings stage, these allegations suffic

Finally, Curative contends that the economic loss rule bars this tort claim. Id. at 13-14. The

economic loss rule “generally precludes recovery in tort for economic losses resulting from the

failure of aparty to perform under acontract.” Yumilicious Franchise, L.L.C. v. Barrie, 819 F.3d

170, 177-78 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 242 S.W.3d

1, 12 (Tex. 2007)). The economic loss rule does not bar Proxi’s negligent misrepresentation claim

at this stage because Proxi pleads that claim and its breach of contract claims in the alternative, as

it is permitted to do. Austin Filter Sys., Inc. v. Belt Constr., Inc., No. 3:20-CV-3176-S, 2022 WL

378196, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2022) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2)-(3)). “While the economic

loss rule might prohibit [Proxi] from recovering damages for both contract and tort claims based

on the same alleged conduct, it does not prevent [Proxi] from pleading both contract and tort claims

as alternative theories of recovery.” Id. As such, the Court will permit Proxi to amend its Complaint

to assert anegligent misrepresentation claim against Curative.

a. Breach of Contract

Proxi brings two breach of contract claims against Curative. In Count 2, Proxi claims that

Curative breached the Agreement by not providing Proxi with acontract in which Dr. Pwas

contracted to be scheduled through May 20, 2022, and by not using its best efforts and good faith

in carrying out the terms of the Agreement. Third Am. Compl. 79-85. In Count 4, Proxi claims

that Curative breached the Agreement by refusing to convey adentistry executive search to Proxi

12

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 12 of 17 PageID 553
and by not using its best efforts and good faith in carrying out the terms of the Agreement. Id.

m94-101. Under Texas law, abreach of contract claim has four elements: (1) the existence of a

valid contract; (2) performance by the plaintiff; (3) breach by the defendant; and (4) damages

sustained by the plaintiff as aresult of the breach. Mullins v. TestAmerica, Inc., 564 F.3d 386, 418

(5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Curative argues that Proxi fails to allege abreach, does not plead

recoverable damages with respect to the breach alleged in Count 4, and cannot rely on allegations

regarding the best efforts and good faith clause to plead an actionable breach. Resp. 15.

As to Count 2, Curative argues that Proxi cannot plead breach because the Agreement does

not promise to convey acontract for Dr. P’s shifts, performance was rendered impossible when

Dr. P’s shifts were cancelled, and Proxi’s disclaimer of reliance bars its claim. Resp. 15-17.

According to Proxi, Curative represented in the Agreement that Dr. Pwas “cun-ently on

assignment” and “scheduled to work through May 20th, 2022.” Third Am. Compl. f42 (quoting

Agreement ^1.4(g)). And Curative agreed to transfer certain assets to Proxi, including customer

contracts. Id. 140. Proxi reviewed those contracts for purposes of determining assignability,

meaning Proxi was aware of the specific contracts to be transferred under the Agreement

Agreement, Ex. B53. However, after the Agreement was executed. Curative allegedly did “not

provid[e] Proxi with acontract wherein Dr. Pwas contracted to be scheduled through and including

May 20, 2022.” Third Am. Compl. ^83. At this stage, these allegations state aclaim for breach of

contract without resort to outside representations or information. Finally, the Court does not fi

^Curative’s argument that Exhibit Bsupports its argument misses the mark. See Resp. 16-17. Proxi alleges

that it would not have known that the contract related to Dr. Phad changed because Curative did not tell

Proxi about the cancellation or update its database to reflect the cancellation. Third Am. Compl. 31, 3

Resolving any doubts in favor of Proxi, these allegations demonstrate that areview of the contract would

not have revealed the issue.

13

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 13 of 17 PageID 554
Curative’s impossibility argument compelling. Dr. P’s shifts allegedly were cancelled prior to

execution of the Agreement, in which Curative represented that Dr. Pwas scheduled to work.

As to Count 4, Curative argues that Proxi fails to state aclaim for breach of contract

because Proxi disclaimed reliance on outside representations and acknowledged its receipt of and

satisfaction with all transferred contracts. Resp. 17. The Agreement provides that Curative would

sell to Proxi “the Business [,] which shall be comprised of the Assets of the Business as set forth in

this Agreement and its Schedules and Exhibits.” Agreement 11.2(a). “The Assets,” in turn, are

defined as “the assets described and listed in Schedule 1.” Id. ^1.1(g). Schedule 1“explicit

provides for all executive searches within the dentistry service line.” Third Am. Compl. T| 99; see

also Agreement, Schedule 149-50. Proxi alleges that Curative breached that portion of the

Agreement by withholding aspecific dental executive search. Third Am. Compl. T| 98. Contra

to Curative’s argument, Proxi does not rely on outside representations to make out its allegations

regarding the breach. And the fact that Proxi reviewed the contracts it was being transferred has

no bearing on whether it can state aclaim for breach based on asearch that was both not transferred

and, allegedly, hidden from Proxi.

Curative further argues that Count 4fails because Proxi’s alleged damages are neither

directly traceable to the breach nor foreseeable. Resp. 18. Proxi alleges that due to the alleged

breach, it lost “the $15,000 retainer fee it would have been owed as well as the $20,000 placement

fee.” Third Am. Compl. 100. At this stage, the Court finds that Proxi adequately states acla

for foreseeable damages caused by Curative’s alleged breach.

Finally, Curative argues that Proxi cannot premise abreach of contract claim on the

Agreement’s best efforts and good faith clause. Resp. 20. Proxi’s allegations regarding this clause

serve only as additional grounds for the breach of contract claims in Counts 2and 4. See Third

14

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 14 of 17 PageID 555
Am. Compl. tH 83, 101. Because the Court has already determined that it would not be futile to

allow Proxi to amend Counts 2and 4, the Court declines to consider the best efforts and good faith

clause allegations at this time.

i n . F r a u d u l e n t I n d u c e m e n t

Under Texas law, fraudulent inducement has five elements: (1) amateri

misrepresentation, (2) made with knowledge of its falsity or asserted without knowledge of its

truth, (3) made with the intention that the other party should act on it, (4) that the other party relied

on, and (5) that caused injury. Anderson v, Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605, 614 (Tex. 2018) (citation

omitted). According to Curative, it would be futile to allow Proxi to amend its Complaint to add a

fraudulent inducement claim because the disclaimer of reliance provisions bar any argument for

justifiable reliance, Proxi does not adequately allege foreseeable and traceable damages, and t

Third Amended Complaint impermissibly relies on group pleading. Resp. 21.

Curative acknowledges that Proxi’s fraudulent inducement claim is based on a

representation in the Agreement but argues that the “claim implicates reliance on outside

information.” Id. The Court disagrees. Proxi alleges that, in the Agreement, Curative promised to

transfer [its] complete dentistry service line to Proxi, including all executive dentistry searches

and documents pertaining to those searches.” Third Am. Compl. ^87. “Proxi relied on the'terms

of the ...Agreement, including the representation that [Curative was] selling to Proxi [its] entire

dentistry service line ...and entered into the ...Agreement.” Id. T| 91. These allegations satisfy

the reliance element without looking to representations made outside of the Agreement; therefore.

the disclaimer of reliance provisions do not bar Proxi’s claim.

15

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 15 of 17 PageID 556
Again, Curative argues that the damages allegedly resulting from the failure to transfer the

executive search were neither traceable nor foreseeable. Resp. 22. As stated above, the Court

rejects this argument at this stage.

Finally, Curative argues that Proxi impermissibly engages in group pleading and “fails to

identify specific statements made by specific speakers in” the Third Amended Complaint. Id. at

[T]he material misrepresentation that forms the basis of the fraudulent inducement claim .. .was

made in the ...Agreement.” Reply 23. The Agreement is between Proxi and Curative, and

Curative’s Chief Executive Officer signed the Agreement. See Third Am. Compl. 87; s

generally Agreement. Thus, the Court concludes that Proxi plausibly alleges that Curative made

the statement at issue.

In sum, “[ujnder the low threshold by which [the Court] evaluate[s] adismissal under

Rule 12(b)(6) and resolving any doubt in favor of [Proxi], [the Court] find[s] that [Proxi] adduc

facts in support of its claim that would entitle it to relief’ against Curative. Stripling, 234 F.3d

at 873. Therefore, amendment of Proxi’s claims against Curative is not futile, and the Court will

permit Proxi to file an amended complain

I V . C O N C L U S I O N

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Proxi’s Motion for

Leave to File Its Third Amended Complaint [ECF No. 31]. The Court GRANTS Proxi leave to

amend its Complaint only to add the factual allegations and causes of action against Curative that

are included in the proposed Third Amended Complaint, which the Court has determined are

sufficient to survive aRule 12(b)(6) challenge. The Court does not grant Proxi leave to amend 

assert any additional factual allegations or causes of action against Curative that are not included

in the proposed Third Amended Complaint. The Court DENIES Proxi leave to amend its

1 6

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 16 of 17 PageID 557
Complaint to add claims against Doximity. Proxi must file its revised Third Amended Complai

by no later than March 11,2024.

S O O R D E R E D .

SIGNED February 26, 2024.

e_

K A R E N G R E N S C H O L E R

U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T J U D G E

17

Case 3:22-cv-02553-S Document 47 Filed 02/26/24 Page 17 of 17 PageID 558