Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180323_0000963.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:52:59+00:00

Document:
PHYSICIANS MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the court are Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. # 77) and cross-motions for summary judgment. (Dkt. # 59, 61.) The court having reviewed full briefing on all three motions, concludes a hearing is unnecessary. See E.D. LR7.1(f)(2). For the reasons discussed herein, the court will deny Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and deny both parties' motions for summary judgment.
Plaintiff Varun Chopra graduated from American University of Antigua-a medical school in the Caribbean-in 2009, but sought to practice medicine in the United States. (Dkt. # 61-2, Pg. ID 13465.) To do so, he needed to be accepted into and complete a medical residency in either the United States or Canada. See American Medical Association, Residency Program Requirements for International Medical Graduates, available at https://www.ama-assn.org/life-career/residency-program- requirements-international-medical-graduates. A medical residency program screens recent medical school graduates to determine whether they are qualified to join the hospital's training program, which allows the graduates to treat patients under the supervision of certified, experienced physicians.
Minhas allegedly arranged for Plaintiffs' parents, Satish and Poonam Chopra, also party to this case, to meet Defendant Hospital's representatives, Defendants' Sanyam and Priyam Sharma. Varun Chopra and his parents visited the Hospital, which was either in bankruptcy or had recently come out of bankruptcy at the time. (Dkt. # 61-3, Pg. ID 1400; Dkt. # 52-2, Pg. ID 1040.) The parties dispute the details of the numerous communications and meetings that occurred next, but undisputedly, Plaintiffs' Satish and Poonam Chopra paid $400, 000 to Defendant Hospital by two checks. The next day Plaintiff Varun Chopra and Defendant Hospital's representative, Defendant Sanyam Sharma, signed a residency agreement (“the Agreement”), thereby accepting Plaintiff to the Hospital's residency team, and permitting him to treat patients here in Michigan.
A residency agreement is a standard contract the Hospital uses for each of its residents. (Dep. N. Hemady, Dkt. # 61-7, Pg. ID 1546.) The Agreement details the terms of the residency including the resident's duties to patients and the compensation owed by the Hospital to the resident. (Dkt. # 1-3, Pg. ID 13-16.) The Agreement also includes a termination provision allowing the Hospital to terminate or not renew the Agreement at its discretion if it finds that the resident has failed to fulfil his/her obligations under the Agreement. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants indicated that Chopra needed a signed residency agreement “in order to participate in the residency program at the Hospital.” (Dkt. # 1, Pg. ID 3.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “would not sign the Residency Agreement unless and until the Hospital was paid $400, 000.” (Dkt. # 1, Pg. ID 3.) There is no mention of the $400, 000 payment or any required payment to the Hospital in the Residency Agreement.
Plaintiff sent his Canadian residency application to Samson and she allegedly indicated it would not be sufficient and he would need to apply through the national system. (Dkt. # 61-2, Pg. ID 1346.) Plaintiff then logged onto the national Electronic Residency Application Service (“ERAS”) to apply to Pontiac General Hospital's program. He no longer possessed his most recent letters of recommendation so he included his letters from his medical school professors, written seven years earlier, instead. Samson allegedly “said those will work. We just need to fill out your file.” Id.
In contrast, Defendants argue that Priyam Sharma telephoned Plaintiff Poonam Chopra regarding Varun Chopra's disengagement from the program. Specifically, Priyam Sharma could not testify to whether Varun Chopra withdrew from the program or the Hospital terminated him from the program. She only remembered that she called Poonam Chopra to discuss Varun Chopra “ending the program” and “that there was a disengagement between Varun and the hospital. By whose side, who did what, I did not know.” (Dep. P. Sharma, Dkt. # 61-6, Pg. ID 1511, 1514.) In any event, Poonam Chopra then telephoned her son regarding his participation in the program.
On October 28, 2016, Varun Chopra emailed Dr. Hemady stating in part, “It was very disappointing to hear that I will not be starting my post graduate training at Pontiac general hospital. Unfortunately, I have only been told through second hand sources that I will not be starting the program.” (Dkt. # 1-6.) Defendant Sanyam Sharma sent a letter to Varun Chopra on November 1, 2016 stating, “The purpose of this letter is to confirm that you no longer have a relationship with Pontiac General Hospital due to your withdrawal from the residency program effective November 1, 2016.” (Dkt. # 1-5, Pg. ID 19.) Varun Chopra returned to Canada on November 2, 2016. Thereafter, Plaintiffs Satish and Poonam Chopra attempted to secure a refund of their $400, 000, but Defendants refused to return it asserting it was a voluntary donation.
(3) whether Plaintiffs assert any claim based on agency.
(Dkt. # 75.) At request of the parties, the court converted the motion hearing to a status conference, prior to which Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file “Amended Complaint to Conform to Evidence Established During Discovery” and attached a proposed amended complaint. (Dkt. # 77.) Defendants filed a response opposing the motion (Dkt. # 82), and Plaintiffs filed a reply. (Dkt. # 83.) The court will now address each of the three pending motions.
According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), after the time allotted under Rule 15(a)(1) has expired, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Although the rule embodies a liberal amendment policy, leave to amend may be appropriately denied “when there is ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.'” Brown v. Chapman, 814 F.3d 436, 443 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)).
Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.” Sagan v. United States, 342 F.3d 493, 497 (6th Cir. 2003). The movant has the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute as to a material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “[T]hat burden may be discharged by showing . . . that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” Bennett v. City of Eastpointe, 410 F.3d 810, 817 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The burden then shifts to the nonmovant, who must put forth enough evidence to show that there exists “a genuine issue for trial.” Horton v. Potter, 369 F.3d 906, 909 (6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is not appropriate when “the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 243 (1986). In evaluating a summary judgment motion, “the judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial . . . credibility judgments and weighing of the evidence are prohibited.” Moran v. Al Basit LLC, 788 F.3d 201, 204 (6th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The present case is before the court under its diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs are legal residents of Canada. Defendants are a Michigan limited liability company with its principal place of business in Pontiac, Michigan, and the Sharmas,  allegedly the majority owners of Defendant Hospital with Priyam Sharma serving as the Chief Executive Officer and Sanyam Sharma serving as the President. As such, the court will apply Michigan law with respect to its review of Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and Plaintiffs' proposed amendments to said claim.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.