Opinion ID: 2977151
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hanger’s Complaint

Text: On April 5, 2007, Hanger filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee requesting damages stemming from breach of contract. Specifically, the complaint states: 1 In its Memorandum Opinion on damages, the chancery court reconsidered its earlier opinion and determined that Choice was not guilty of tortious interference with business relationships. -5- No. 07-6329 Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics East, Inc. v. Henson, et al. 1. This is an action for damages arising from Defendants’ procurement of breach of contract under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-109. Henson and Altshuler are the principals and owners of [Choice], which provide[s] orthotic and prosthetic products and services in competition with Hanger in the State of Tennessee. On September 1, 2004, Defendants knowingly and tortiously induced [Kitchens], Hanger’s key orthotist in the Knoxville area, to breach his non-compete agreement with Hanger by accepting employment with and actively working for Choice in the Knoxville area. As a Choice employee, Kitchens, on behalf of and with the assistance of Choice, wrongfully solicited and obtained numerous orthotics referrals from physicians whom Kitchens knew solely because of his employment with Hanger. 2. On November 15, 2004, Hanger filed [suit in chancery court]. In the State Court Action, Hanger sought injunctive relief and damages against Kitchens and Choice for several claims, including breach of contract and inducement or procurement of breach of contract. 3. After conducting a trial on the issue of liability on August 30, 2005, the Court found that Kitchens breached his non-compete agreement with Hanger and that Choice, through the actions of its principals Henson and Altshuler, procured such breach in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-109. (JA 4-5). The complaint continues with a description of the chancery court’s conclusions regarding damages, stating that the chancery court found Choice liable for “$720,546, representing treble damages, and costs. The treble damages award against Choice was based on the actions of Henson and Altshuler in procuring Kitchens’ breach of contract.” (JA 5.) In the fact section of the Complaint, Hanger repeats the allegations made in, and adopted by, the state court, and continues by describing Defendants’ actions as owners of Choice—the Defendant in the state court proceeding: 18. As found in the State Court Action, Choice, through its owners and principals Henson and Altshuler, continued to use Kitchens as an orthotist in the Knoxville area in violation of Kitchens’ non-compete agreement with Hanger. By their actions in violation of Hanger’s rights, Kitchens and Choice obtained numerous orthotics and referrals for Choice from physicians in the Knoxville area, physicians Kitchens had -6- No. 07-6329 Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics East, Inc. v. Henson, et al. formally services on behalf of Hanger. Kitchens also performed virtually all of the orthotics work for Choice related to these referrals. 19. Choice and Kitchens continued their unlawful competition with Hanger until the Chancery Court issued a temporary injunction on February 23, 2005, prohibiting further violation of Kitchens’ non-compete agreement pending the resolution of the matter on the merits. (JA 9-10.) The fact section next describes the proceedings in the state court, and attempts to include the chancery court’s conclusions: 23. Hanger expressly and affirmatively pleads the issues, facts, and/or claims raised [above] are already conclusively established by the findings of fact and conclusions of law, actually litigated and necessarily decided, by the Chancery Court in its rulings . . . . (JA 11.) The statement of facts concludes: 24. Henson and Altshuler, through their individual actions, procured the breach of Kitchens’ Employment Agreement with Hanger and are liable in their individual capacity as joint tortfeasors for procurement of breach of contract under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-109. (JA 11.) Finally, Hanger’s requested relief is the amount of damages determined by the chancery court.