ATLANTIC MEDICAL SPECIALISTS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff,
GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A., MICHELE CAMPONELLI, THOMAS SPAHR, MARK CORSO, M.D., DAVID R. BESWICK, M.D, IRA F. LOBIS, M.D. and JOSEPH F. HACKER III, M.D., Defendants.
Submitted: February 13, 2017
Certain Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
Laurence V. Cronin, Esquire, SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS
LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Plaintiff.
Scott Reese, Esquire and Christopher H. Lee, Esquire, COOCH
AND TAYLOR P.A., Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Certain
Defendants' Mark Corso, M.D., David R. Beswick, M.D., Ira
F. Lobis, M.D., and Joseph F. Hacker, III, M.D.
Charles E. Butler Judge
September 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint to
add Defendants Mark Corso, M.D., David Beswick, M.D., Ira
Lobis, M.D. and Joseph Hacker III, M.D. (collectively the
"Individual Defendants") in their individual
capacity. The only substantive addition to the Complaint is
that these newly named defendants "were personally
involved in" causing the corporate defendant to disclose
confidential business information belonging to
are two claims asserted against the Individual Defendants:
tortious interference with contract and misappropriation of
trade secrets. Individual Defendants have brought this
motion to dismiss the claims asserted against them, arguing
that the Court lacks jurisdiction and that the claims are
barred by the statute of limitations.
Defendants' Argument that the Statute of Limitations has
Expired on Plaintiffs Trade Secrets Claim is Moot.
today ruled that the harm done to Plaintiff, assuming it can
prove its case to the jury, was not a misappropriation of
trade secrets. We therefore will demur on ruling on
Defendant's argument that the statute of limitations has
expired on the dismissed claim.
Defendants' Argument that Plaintiff is Improperly
Attempting to Pierce the Corporate Veil is Rejected.
Individual Defendants argue that Plaintiff is engaged in an
improper effort to "pierce the corporate veil, " a
device employable only in a court of equity and a matter over
which this Court has no jurisdiction. While it is true that
the Superior Court may not pierce the corporate veil and
attach liability to directors, "officers or shareholders
as such,  Defendants mischaracterize Plaintiffs
complaint. The liability alleged does not attach to the named
Individual Defendants by reason of their status as
shareholders or directors. Rather, liability is sought due to
the Individual Defendants' individual participation in
the torts complained of.
not referenced by Plaintiff in its pleadings, the
"personal participation doctrine" holds that
officers and directors in a corporation can be held liable
for torts that they "commit, participate in, or inspire,
even though the acts are performed in the name of the
corporation." Liability only attaches where the officer