Court Opinion

ID: 9817780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 04:44:12.123067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:31.954819
License: Public Domain

*676RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part:
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion holding that ProMed’s valid rejection of the Agreement between ProMed and Chandrahas Agarwal constituted a breach of that contract.
The contract between Agarwal and ProMed provided for non-renewal of the contract if written notice of non-renewal was given. ProMed complied with the non-renewal provision of the contract, resulting in non-renewal of the contract. ProMed only sought rejection of the contract as a cautionary measure in response to the filing of an adversary proceeding by Agarwal. The fact that ProMed filed a superfluous motion to reject a contract that had not been renewed does not support a finding of breach.