Source: https://casetext.com/case/wound-care-centers-2
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:29:16+00:00

Document:
Pending before the court is a motion to amend findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the "Motion" (ECF No. 67)) filed by plaintiffs Wound Care Centers, Inc. ("WCCI"), and Diversified Clinical Services, Inc. ("Diversified" and together with WCCI, "plaintiffs" or "WCCS"). Upon review of the Motion (ECF No. 67), the brief in support (ECF No. 68), the response (ECF No. 70), filed by defendants David Catalane, Rodney Kosanovich, Philip Georgevich, Paul Willis, Rick Scanlan, Robert Yellenik, Samina Naseer, Vidhu Sharma (the "physician defendants"), and Ohio Valley General Hospital ("OVGH" and together with physician defendants, "defendants"), and the record of the instant case, the court will deny the Motion for the reasons set forth below.
1) employing any physician defendant directly or through a similar facility that has as its primary business the treatment of chronic non-healing wounds; and 2) disclosing, publishing, or disseminating confidential information as defined in the PAAs, to include causing the employees of OVGH to disclose, publish or disseminate the same confidential information.
Wound Care Centers, Inc., 2011 WL 553875, at *2.
In rejecting plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief, the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law which are challenged in the instant Motion. In weighing the need for injunctive relief and deriving the corresponding facts and conclusions of law, the court conducted a four-part analysis as contemplated by Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Botticella, 613 F.3d 102, 109 (3d Cir. 2010), and other applicable case law. The court concluded that plaintiffs did not make the requisite showing to justify the remedy sought. Wound Care Centers, Inc., 2011 WL 553875, at *27.
Under the Bimbo Bakeries analysis the court evaluated: (1) plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was denied; (3) if greater harm would be caused to the nonmoving party by granting the injunction; and (4) if public interest favors the injunction. Id. at **13-14 (citing Bimbo Bakeries, 613 F.3d at 109). Specifically, the court found that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof on the first two prongs of the Bimbo Bakeries analysis, and that the remaining two prongs of the analysis weighed against the plaintiffs. Id. at *27.
(a) In part, the purpose behind the restrictive covenants contained within the PAA's [sic] is to protect the goodwill and patient referral basis created and generated by the Plaintiffs through its operation of the Center.
(b) The restrictions within the PAA's [sic] are necessary and legitimate to protect the goodwill and patient referral base created and generated by the Plaintiffs as the Plaintiffs continue to manage, among others, Wound Care Centers at Jefferson Health Services, East Liverpool City Hospital, and St. Elizabeth Boardman Health Center.
(c) WCCS has a legitimate business interest in the enforcement of the PAA's [sic] despite the closure of the Center at OVGH as WCCS continues to operate existing Centers and open new Centers within the protected zone.
For the reasons set forth below, the court declines to make any such additional findings or amend its prior findings of fact and conclusions of law and plaintiffs' instant Motion will be denied.
(b) Amended or Additional Findings. On a party's motion filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment, the court may amend its findings — or make additional findings — and may amend the judgment accordingly. . . .
FED R. CIV. P. 52(b).
A party who failed to prove his strongest case is not entitled to a second opportunity to litigate a point, to present evidence that was available but not previously offered, or to advance new theories by moving to amend a particular finding of fact or a conclusion of law. It is said that the motion must raise questions of substance by seeking reconsideration of material findings of fact or conclusions of law to prevent manifest injustice or reflect newly discovered evidence.
Id. at 353-56 (emphasis added and footnotes omitted); see Edwards v. Wyatt, Civ. No. 01-1333, 2007 WL 136687, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2007), vacated in part on other grounds, 330 F. App'x 342 (3d Cir. 2009); Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., Civ. No. 05-857, 2009 WL 5064478, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 17, 2009) (citingGutierrez v. Ashcroft, 289 F. Supp.2d 555, 561 (D. N.J. 2003)).
A proper motion to alter or amend judgment "must rely on one of three major grounds: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence [not available previously]; or (3) the need to correct clear error [of law] or prevent manifest injustice."
N. River Ins. Co., 52 F.3d at 1218 (quoting Natural Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 705 F. Supp. 698, 702 (D. D.C. 1989)).
In order to make modifications to findings of fact or conclusions of law, the challenged facts or conclusions must be "basic or essential." United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173, 180 (1944). In conformity with the Rule 59(e) standard described above, amending findings of fact requires: (1) the availability of new evidence not available previously, or (2) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. See N. River Ins. Co. at 1218. Under the same standard, amending conclusions of law thus requires a showing of: (1) intervening change of law or (2) need to correct a clear error of law or manifest injustice. See N. River Ins. Co., 52 F.3d at 1218.
Rule 52(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly describes the appellate standard of review for amending findings of fact as that of clear error. A district court is not bound to follow this same standard over its own findings of fact. Nonetheless, the language in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not inconsistent with the standards applied here. FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a)(6); see Sears, Roebuck, Co. v. Johnson, 219 F.2d 590, 591 (3d Cir. 1955).
"Because of the interest in finality, at least at the district court level, motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly. . . . [A] motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded in a request for a district court to rethink a decision it has already made, rightly or wrongly." Williams v. City of Pittsburgh, 32 F. Supp. 2d 236, 238 (W.D. Pa. 1998).
It is not clear whether plaintiffs are requesting the court to make additional conclusions of law or instead make additional findings of fact; plaintiffs' proposed order is captioned: ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT , although the text of plaintiff's respective proposed order states: "Plaintiffs move the Court to find and/or make the following additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. . . ." (Pl.s' Br. at Ex. A (ECF No. 68-1).) The substance of the proposed amendments appear to be more accurately addressed in the form of conclusions of law than as findings of facts. The distinction, however, in not dispositive for purposes of ruling on the instant motion to amend.
The parties agree that the appropriate legal standard governing a Rule 52(b) motion requires a showing of manifest injustice of error in law or fact, newly discovered evidence not previously available, or an intervening change in controlling law. None of these situations are present here. Plaintiffs did not make any showing of newly discovered evidence not previously available or any intervening change in controlling law; rather, only disagreement with the application of the controlling law itself. Plaintiffs' primary argument is that each case relied upon by the court in denying the preliminary injunction can be distinguished on the facts from the instant case. (Pl.s' Br. 3 (ECF No. 68).) The court knows that Gibson v. Eberle, 762 P.2d 777, 779 (Colo. App. 1988), is "non-controlling" (Pl.s' Br. 3 (ECF No. 68)), for purposes of this court's adjudication of the instant case under Pennsylvania law. Gibson's rationale, however, is persuasive. Consideration of persuasive decisions of courts in other jurisdictions, however, does not rise to the level of manifest injustice, as alleged by plaintiffs and required to grant a Rule 52(b) motion.
The court was not able to find any case law, either in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit or otherwise, supporting the view that the mere citation to the persuasive rationale of decisions rendered by courts in other jurisdictions constitutes manifest injustice.
Similar to a franchisor protecting its franchise, WCCS has an interest in expansion and a current presence within that market to protect, and competition from the Defendants within that twenty mile radius would lead to significant harm for WCCS. . . . If plaintiff is unable to enforce this restrictive covenant against these defendants, the values of all of its franchises are lowered.
In support of this proposition plaintiff relies upon decisions interpreting facts pursuant to an express franchise agreement.See Maaco Franchising, Inc. v. Augustin, Civ. A. No. 09-4548, 2010 WL 1644278 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 2010); Athlete's Foot Marketing Associates, Inc. v. Zell Investment, Inc., No. Civ. A. 00-186, 2000 WL 426186 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2000); Rita's Water Ice Franchise Corp. v. DBI Investment Corp., No. 96-306, 1996 WL 165518 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 1996). The circumstances in those cases involved former franchisees who continued to operate businesses in a substantially similar manner following termination of a franchise agreement — and are inapplicable to the instant case. Here, because plaintiffs and defendants are not parties to an express franchise agreement, plaintiffs' argument that the values of Wound Care Centers at other locations would be lowered if plaintiffs are unable to enforce the restrictive covenants in issue is misplaced. Notably, pursuant to a contractual agreement entered into by WCCS and OVGH on December 1, 1991, OVGH had agreed not to compete in specialty wound care treatment programs for two years following termination of that agreement. On December 1, 2005, OVGH and plaintiffs entered into a new agreement (the "MSA") that contained non-compete provisions for only the term of the MSA. The MSA terminated on April 19, 2010. Wound Care Centers, Inc., 2011 WL 553875, at **3-6. Assuming for the sake of argument that an analogy to franchise agreements can be made here, the relevant "franchisee" would be OVGH and OVGH clearly could directly compete in the specialty wound care treatment market after April 19, 2010 and it did so. Under those circumstances, the franchise analogy fails.
Plaintiffs' franchise protection argument ignores the court's findings of fact with respect to the contributions and goodwill attributed to the practicing physicians in plaintiffs' success of the center operated at OVGH. Wound Care Centers, Inc., 2011 WL 553875, at *21 ¶ 20. ("[T]he goodwill and the patient referral base in issue cannot be solely attributed to WCCS.") In conducting its analysis under the Bimbo Bakeries standard, the court already considered plaintiffs' argument that irreparable harm would befall plaintiffs — including to their goodwill — if the preliminary injunction were denied, and found that no such harm would occur. See Id. at **24-25. Because plaintiffs do not cite any intervening change in controlling law, new evidence not available previously, or manifest injustice relevant to the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, they do not meet the appropriate legal standard to amend the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
[w]ithin a fifty-mile radius of OVGH, WCCS manages, among others, wound care centers at Jefferson Health Services ("Jefferson"), East Liverpool City Hospital ("East Liverpool"), and St. Elizabeth Boardman Health Center ("St. Elizabeth").
WCCS did not show intent to reestablish an alternative wound care center at a location separate and apart from OVGH that would directly compete with OVGH within a twenty-mile radius at OVGH.
Id. at *25 ¶ 48. This finding of fact does not contradict the court's subsequent conclusion of law. The court found evidence of record to support a finding of fact that plaintiffs previously established other wound care centers within a fifty-mile radius of OVGH. That fact does invalidate the court's conclusion that plaintiffs did not show intent to reestablish a directly competitive alternative wound care center within a twenty-mile radius from OVGH.
Plaintiffs were previously afforded a full and fair opportunity to make their case and litigate the issue whether injunctive relief is warranted under the facts of the instant case. To reopen this previously adjudicated issue in the form of a Rule 52(b) motion is not appropriate under the circumstances. Plaintiffs failed to show in the Motion any manifest injustice of either law or fact, any newly discovered evidence not previously available, or any intervening change in controlling law. Accordingly, plaintiffs' Motion is without merit and will be denied in its entirety.
The court, in its Memorandum Opinion denying injunctive relief, addressed the issue whether irreparable harm would befall plaintiffs if their motion for preliminary injunction were denied, and specifically concluded that irreparable harm would not occur. See Wound Care Centers, Inc., 2011 WL 553875, at *27.
AND NOW, this 9th day of August, 2011, upon careful consideration of the motion to amend findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 67), filed by plaintiffs Wound Care Centers, Inc. and Diversified Clinical Services, Inc., the brief in support (ECF No. 68), the response of defendants David Catalane, Rodney Kosanovich, Philip Georgevich, Paul Willis, Rick Scanlan, Robert Yellenik, Samina Naseer, Vidhu Sharma and Ohio Valley General Hospital (ECF No. 70), and the record of the instant case, the Motion is DENIED.

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