S-19-0132 Robert Dick (Appellee/Cross-Appellant) v. Koski Professional Group, P.C. (Appellant) v. Bland and Associates, P.C. (Appellee/Cross-Appellants)
Douglas County District Court, Judge J. Russell Derr
Attorneys: Robert M. Slovek, Dwyer Arce (Kutak Rock LLP, for Appellant); Aaron A. Clark, Ruth A. Horvatich, Cody E. Brookhouser-Sisney (McGrath North, PC LLO, for Appellee, Robert Dick; and Ryan M. Kunhart and Jeffrey J. Blumel (Dvorak Law Group, for Third Party Appellee)
Civil: Breach of contract; Breach of fiduciary duty; Tortious interference with business relationship
Proceedings Below: A jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellee, Robert Dick, on his breach of contract claim and against the Appellant on each of its counterclaims and each of its third party claims. The judgment entered by the court on January 10, 2019 denied Appellant’s post-verdict motion for directed verdict and new trial, and entered a money judgment for $470,312.51, plus interest, payable pursuant to the terms of the parties’ “Shareholder Agreement.”
Issues: The issues as assigned by the Appellant (consolidated and restated) are whether the trial court 1) abused its discretion by granting Appellee and third-party Appellee twice as many peremptory strikes as Appellant; 2) erred by denying Appellant’s motion for directed verdict; 3) abused its discretion by excluding evidence of Appellee’s breach of fiduciary duty and in the alternative, by denying Appellant’s motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence; 4) abused its discretion when it refused to instruct the jury on Appellant’s affirmative defense that Appellee’s breach of fiduciary duty, bylaws, and covenant of good faith and fair dealing could constitute a prior material breach of the Shareholder Agreement; 5) abused its discretion when it refused to instruct the jury that it must find Appellee satisfied all conditions precedent to find the Shareholder Agreement enforceable; 6) abused its discretion when it refused to instruct the jury on the corporate opportunity doctrine and equitable clawback damages; 7) abused its discretion when it instructed the jury that Appellant bore the entire burden of proving Appellee breached his fiduciary duty; 8) abused its discretion when it instructed the jury on the lower duty of loyalty owed by an employee; 9) abused its discretion when it instructed the jury that Appellant’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty was based on two grounds only; 10) abused its discretion when it instructed the jury that Appellant’s confidential information must satisfy the legal definition of a trade secret to be protected; and 11) erred as a matter of law that third party’s payment of commissions to Appellee did not violate the Nebraska State Board of Public Accountancy Rules of Professional Conduct and excluding evidence of the improper commissions from trial.
On cross-appeal, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Robert Dick, assigns error (consolidated and restated) as to whether the district court erred by denying Appellee’s motion for a directed verdict against Appellant.
On cross-appeal, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Bland and Associates, P.C., assigns error (consolidated and restated) as to whether the district court erred in overruling Bland’s motion for directed verdict on Appellant’s third-party claims.