Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care

Excerpt

Plaintiff dentist entered into non-compete agreement with another dentist appeals jury verdict on claim of tortious interference with contract against defendant dental practice that hired competing dentist. Dental practice cross-appealed. Plaintiff not entitled to prejudgment interest, claim was tortious not contractual, plaintiff did not demonstrate that the dental practice failed to engage in good faith settlement efforts prior to trial. Court did not abuse discretion denying plaintiff's motion to compel discovery concerning net worth of dental practice, plaintiff's discovery attempts occurred after case tried to a jury and was on remand. If information critical to case the plaintiff would have requested it in discovery prior to first trial. Court did not abuse discretion disallowing testimony concerning net worth of dental practice, plaintiff failed to proffer evidence, forcing appeals court to speculate and where jury's decision not to award punitive damages was based on lack of malice rather than the net worth of dental practice. Judgment against dental practice not void where entered against the dental practice's trade name, rather than legal entity behind trade name. R.C. 1329.10(C) permits action to be "maintained" against trade name. No abuse of discretion in court declining to correct judgment entry to reflect the legal entity where the plaintiff indicated that it was his intention to sue the trade name.