Osseous Technologies of Am., Inc. v. DiscoveryOrtho Partners LLC
Decision Date | 28 December 2010 |
Docket Number | No. G042747.,G042747. |
Citation | 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 346,2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 19,10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 16,191 Cal.App.4th 357 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | OSSEOUS TECHNOLOGIES OF AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DISCOVERYORTHO PARTNERS LLC, Defendant and Respondent. |
Enterprise Counsel Group, Patrick D. Flannery, Benjamin P. Pugh, and James S. Azadian for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Summers & Shives, Sandra P. Llaneta for Defendant and Respondent.
Faced with accusations it was breaching a services agreement by failing to pay what it allegedly owed for services rendered, Osseous Technologies of America, Inc. (Osseous), sued for declaratory relief (Code Civ. Proc., § 1060) 1 rather than waiting for a breach of contract action to be filed against it. Defendant DiscoveryOrtho Partners, LLC (DiscoveryOrtho), demurred to the complaint on the grounds the trial court should exercise its discretion under section 1061 to "refuse to exercise the power" to decide declaratory relief actions. In sustaining the demurrer, the court reasoned declaratory relief would not be "necessary or proper at the time under all the circumstances" ( § 1061) because the facts as pleaded amounted to a breach of contract dispute (looking to past conduct) rather than a forward-looking pronouncement of the rights and duties of the parties. The court did not abuse its discretion by sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and entering judgment accordingly.
( City of Dinuba v. County of Tulare (2007) 41 Cal.4th 859, 865, 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 614, 161 P.3d 1168.) We therefore base our recitation of the underlying facts on the facts pleaded in Osseous's complaint for declaratory relief and attachments thereto.
Osseous "develops and markets innovative, high quality products for surgeons and restorative clinicians in dental and sinus surgery sectors." Osseous believed one such technology to be particularly promising, with possible applications beyond dental and sinus surgery. "To that end, [Osseous] became interested in seeking out an asset sale or license with medical device manufacturers for its existing ... technology."
Osseous entered into a written marketing agreement (which Osseous attached to the complaint) with DiscoveryOrtho on December 3, 2008. The marketing agreement pertained to the promising Osseous technology noted above. Osseous disclosed it had begun discussions with Medtronic (a prominent medical technology company) regarding the Osseous technology. Osseous indicated it would like DiscoveryOrtho to "[p]rovide outreach/introductions/interface to [potential] licensing partners i.e. Stryker, Globus, Synthes, and Zimmer etc."
Pursuant to the marketing agreement, DiscoveryOrtho agreed to
Osseous's obligations under the marketing agreement pertained to exclusivity and fees. The exclusivity provision stated: The fee provision allocated "a percentage of the total value of the final license or asset sale transaction" to DiscoveryOrtho. The parties agreed to one fee formula for a Medtronic transaction, then provided: "The percentage paid to DiscoveryOrtho on a non-Medtronic license or acquisition would be 5% of the transaction/gross consideration of up to $25 million plus 9% on any incremental gross amount from $25 million and above."
"In or about June 2009, [Osseous] reached a Distribution Agreement with Zimmer ... regarding [Osseous's] existing ... technology and products...." Citing a confidentiality agreement, Osseous did not attach the Zimmer distribution agreement to the complaint or quote its key provisions. Instead, Osseous characterized it as not "involv[ing] an asset sale or upfront license, or [DiscoveryOrtho's] creation of any new product designs or applications."
"[DiscoveryOrtho] sent [Osseous] an invoice on or about June 23, 2009, demanding that [Osseous] pay [DiscoveryOrtho] exorbitant sums for upfront payments, milestones, royalties, yearly minimums, product transfer prices and call options all based at the 8.5% rate specified in the Addendum and extending over the entire life of the Zimmer Distribution Agreement...." Osseous "disputed, and hereby again disputes, the Invoice and the amounts stated thereon and/or that any account has been stated between [Osseous] and [DiscoveryOrtho] for any of those amounts." The invoice, attached to the complaint, indicates a $2,250,000 upfront payment was due, and set forth a schedule (stretching over at least 5 years) for additional payments.
The July 2, 2009 complaint avers an actual controversy exists as to "whether [DiscoveryOrtho] is entitled to any payment from [Osseous] pursuant to the Agreement or Addendum for any consulting services provided by [DiscoveryOrtho] to [Osseous] in connection with or in assistance to the Zimmer Distribution Agreement." The prayer for relief requests a declaration on multiple questions pertaining to the interpretation of the DiscoveryOrtho agreement (with addendum) and its applicability to the Zimmer distribution agreement. The complaint contends neither the agreement nor the addendum apply to the Zimmer distribution agreement. The complaint further contends DiscoveryOrtho's "recovery of any amount for its services should be limited to and measured on a quantum meruit basis for the reasonable value of the services provided by [DiscoveryOrtho] in connection with the Zimmer Distribution Agreement."
The filing of the complaint occurred more than six months after the execution of the marketing agreement (which by its terms lasted for six months unless extended). There was no allegation in the complaint that, other than alleged current and prospective payment obligations, the marketing agreement (or a successor agreement) was still in effect at the time of filing.
DiscoveryOrtho demurred to the complaint. On September 25, 2009, the court held a hearing and ultimately sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The court reasoned: The court indicated there was no possible amendment of the complaint that could change the result, rejecting counsel's suggestion that further explanation "of the Zimmer distribution agreement and further flushing out the issues with [the] invoice" could change the court's calculus. Judgment was entered on November 6, 2009.
In March 2010, DiscoveryOrtho sued Osseous for breach of contract in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 2 The federal case is still pending; we take judicial notice of the fact that on August 16, 2010, the district court denied Osseous's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or to abstain from deciding the case in favor of the action before this court.
Ordinarily, ( City of Dinuba v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.
... ... Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc. v. Maxxam Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1373, ... ( Osseous Technologies of America, Inc. v. DiscoveryOrtho ... (See, e.g., Colonies Partners, L.P. v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th ... ...
-
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Highland P'ship, Inc.
...5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, § 869, p. 284, italics added; Osseous Technologies of Am., Inc. v. DiscoveryOrtho Partners LLC (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 357, 366, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 346, 352. 36. The Court previously denied Travelers' motion to dismiss this claim. (Doc. No. ......
-
Clear Connection Corp. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns Mgmt., LLC
...an actual breach of contract or other wrongful act, declaratory relief may be denied." Osseous Techs. of Am., Inc. v. DiscoveryOrtho Partners LLC , 191 Cal. App. 4th 357, 366, 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 346 (2010) (emphasis in original). Here, Comcast seeks declaratory relief relating to Clear, Clear ......
-
Franklin EWC, Inc. v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc.
...applies, the FAC's claim for declaratory relief must be dismissed with prejudice. See Osseous Techs. of Am., Inc. v. DiscoveryOrtho Partners LLC , 191 Cal. App. 4th 357, 365, 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 346 (2010) ("Declaratory relief pursuant to [ Cal. Civ. Proc. § 1060 ] has frequently been used as a......