Leonardi v. Sherry

137 S.W.3d 462 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Pharmaceutical companies contracted with Radiant Research, Inc., to oversee human clinical trials testing new drugs. Radiant and P, a medical doctor, entered into several clinical trial consulting agreements whereby P agreed to conduct some of those trials for Radiant. The agreements included restrictive covenants that prohibited P from conducting further trials for the pharmaceutical companies for one year following the termination of the consulting agreements unless Radiant served as the intermediary. P terminated the relationship in November 2001. Radiant filed a six-count petition against P in February 2002 seeking injunctive relief and damages on every count. Radiant's claims included breach of contract, anticipatory repudiation, tortious interference with contracts, and civil conspiracy. Radiant sought to enforce restrictive covenants in the consulting agreements. P filed a four-count counterclaim and asserted multiple affirmative defenses, including laches, estoppel, and unclean hands. P included actions for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. He also requested a declaratory judgment. The trial court denied Radiant's request for a preliminary injunction: It is well settled that injunctive relief is inappropriate where there appears to be an adequate remedy at law.

P voluntarily dismissed his action for a declaratory judgment. He then filed a motion for a ruling on the merits of Radiant's equitable claims. The trial court concluded that P was not entitled to a jury trial because it retained jurisdiction over Radiant's claims pursuant to the equitable cleanup doctrine in that 'a court of equity may retain jurisdiction to award damages where equity requires this form of relief in the circumstances.' P filed his request for a writ in prohibition. A preliminary order in prohibition was issued instructing the trial court to refrain from all action in the case until further notice. P argues that the equitable cleanup doctrine is inapplicable under the circumstances and that the trial court violated his constitutional right to a jury.