Opinion ID: 5120221
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Tying Up Loose Ends.

Text: In addition to having ruled in favor of the Hospitals on their breach of contract claim, the district court made certain other rulings. Two of these other rulings require our attention. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the Hospitals' claim of entitlement to a full audit and accounting of the relevant records for the reporting period ending June 30, 2017. See Gen. Hosp. Corp., 2019 WL 4218706, at . The court determined that it would award injunctive relief on that claim, see id. at , and entered judgment thereon in favor of the Hospitals. This grant of relief draws its essence from section 5.4 of the License, which gives the Hospitals audit rights solely for examination during normal business hours to verify any reports and payments made under, and/or to determine compliance in other respects with, [the License]. License § 5.4. Without Esoterix's duty to pay the unpaid amounts, the Hospitals' right to an audit and accounting to verify or determine compliance as to those payments would cease to exist. Given our holding that the Hospitals have released Esoterix with respect to all obligations incurred up to June 27, 2017, the Hospitals are entitled to payment for only four days of the reporting period that they wish to audit. - 23 - This curtailment in the period that is open to audit may very well influence both the Hospitals' desire for the audit and the district court's determination that one is required (especially in view of the License-fee setoff). We think it sensible, therefore, to vacate the judgment as to the audit-andaccounting claim; without prejudice, however, to the Hospitals' right to renew their request if they wish to do so under the materially changed circumstances. The defendants also moved to dismiss count five — the Hospitals' claim for reformation of contract (the settlement agreement) — based on mistake. See Gen. Hosp. Corp., 2019 WL 4218706, at . The district court granted the motion as to the claim, dismissing it as moot. See id. Given the collapse of the Hospitals' breach of contract claim, see supra Part II(C), the reformation claim is no longer moot. Since the district court did not decide the motion to dismiss count five on the merits, we vacate the order of dismissal so as to allow the district court to consider this repositioned claim in the first instance. See Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corp., 823 F.3d 724, 735 (1st Cir. 2016).