at ¶¶ 22 25.) The arbitrator further concluded that the precise value of loss cannot be determined sufficiently to make an award on the basis of the report. at ¶ 22.) Relying on an expert report, the arbitrator found that Bansal had contributed to the growth of the practice, that Chakrala had benefited from Bansal s contribution, and that Chakrala had breached the agreement in numerous ways that injured Bansal. at ¶ 21.) On September 22, 2010, the arbitrator issued a Partial Final Award in favor of Bansal. During arbitration, Chakrala dissolved Chakrala P.C. at ¶ 19.) The parties began arbitration in early 2010. Arbitration Bansal filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin Chakrala from terminating the agreement, but the court compelled the parties to arbitrate the dispute instead. at ¶ 11.) The arrangement worked for over a year and a half, but on May 7, 2008, Chakrala sent a letter informing Bansal that she was terminating the agreement because Bansal had breached the contract by providing services to another physician and by not significantly add to the growth of the practice. at ¶ 14 (quoting Partnership Agreement 8).) 2 three months off. at ¶ 13 (quoting Partnership Agreement 7).) But if Chakrala terminated the partnership after the initial two years, Chakrala would receive the book value of the assets in service on the commencement date. at ¶ 17.) Under the agreement, the doctors worked a rotating work schedule, alternating three months of work and 2 Bansal was not required to pay a buy-in, but she was also not entitled to a buy-out: her 50% interest would revert back to Chakrala when and if terminate or withdr. at ¶ 16 (citing Partnership Agreement 11).) Bansal began practicing at Chakrala P.C. at ¶ 12 (quoting Partnership Agreement 5).) The Agreement also provided that any disputes related to the agreement would be submitted to binding arbitration. in the Township of Plainsboro, for a period of 2 years from the date of dissolution of the Partnership. at ¶ 10.) The Agreement contained a restrictive covenant requiring the parties to not open or start any business of the same nature. To create the partnership, Bansal resigned from a position as a staff physician at a nearby hospital and became a 50% shareholder in Chakrala s medical practice, Chakrala P.C. The Agreement was for a two-year period and would renew automatically unless one party notified the other that it was withdrawing. Chakrala signed a Partnership Agreement establishing a joint medical practice in Plainsboro, New Jersey. Formation and Termination of the Partnership In 2006, Dr. ( PPMA ) oppose the request and also move to dismiss the Petition on various grounds, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ) and third party respondent Plainsboro-Princeton Medical Associates, P.C. Sudha Bansal wants the Court to confirm part of that award, modify a second part, and vacate a third. They submitted their dispute to arbitration as required by the agreement and came away with a final arbitration award. BACKGROUND This is a case about two medical doctors who entered into a partnership agreement and later had a falling out. 1 This party is incorrectly named in the Petition as Plainsboro-Princeton Medical Center. For the reasons stated below, Respondents crossmotion to dismiss is granted, and Petitioner s motion is denied as moot. The Court has decided the matter after considering the parties submissions and after holding oral argument on May 20, 2011. ) and by third party respondent Plainsboro-Princeton Medical Associates, P.C. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner Sudha Bansal s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award and upon the Cross-motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents Aruna Chakrala and Dr. Respondents, and PLAINSBORO-PRINCETON MEDICAL CENTER, Third Party Respondent. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Sudha BANSAL, Petitioner, Civ.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |