Kortum v. Johnson
Cynthia Kortum and Cynthia
Kortum Enterprises, LTD., Plaintiffs and Appellants
Steve Johnson, Theresa Johnson,
Tracy Martin, Michelle Radke-Hella
and Independent Family Doctors, LTD., Defendants and Appellees
East Central Judicial District,
Judge Steven L. Marquart
|Nature of Action:||Corporations|
|Term:||03/2010  Argument: 03/09/2010 10:45am|
|ND cite:||2010 ND 153|
786 N.W.2d 702
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I.Whether the trial court erred as a matter of fact and law when it found that Kortum's status as a shareholder terminated simultaneously with the termination of her employment.
II.As a shareholder, was Kortum entitled to request a revaluation of the corporate stock?
III.As a shareholder, was Kortum entitled to an accounting for distribution of the corporate profits?
IV.Have the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty owed to Kortum?
V.Whether the Court erroneously allowed the Defendants to tax the costs and disbursement incurred in the first trial in the Amended and Second Amended Judgment entered after remand.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
The appellants, Cynthia Kortum and Cynthia Kortum Enterprises, LTD., (collectively referred to as "Kortum") have brought forth a number of issues in this second appeal. Because the first appeal limited the issues for determination on remand, the issues properly before this Court in this appeal are similarly limited by the law of the case. The issues arising upon Kortum's instant appeal are:
1. Does the law of the case prevent Kortum from rearguing whether she is entitled to a revaluation of the corporate stock and lab fees?
2. Does the law of the case preclude Kortum from rearguing the valuation of the corporate stock when the district court entered a judgment valuing the corporate stock consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in the first appeal?
3. Does the law of the case preclude Kortum from rearguing whether she is entitled to the corporation's lab fees on a theory not initially presented to the Supreme Court and because the district court found Kortum was not treated in an unfairly prejudicial manner?
4. Did the district court clearly err in finding the defendant shareholders did not breach their fiduciary duty and did not act in a manner unfairly prejudicial towards a minority shareholder when her employment was terminated because the minority shareholder, a doctor, was frequently unavailable during scheduled on call, drank while on call, failed to attend staff meetings, used foul language within the earshot of patients, failed to complete assigned projects, and took actions that compromised patient care? 5. Did the district court abuse its discretion in taxing costs in favor of the prevailing defendants for costs incurred during the initial trial when the district court relied on testimony during the initial trial to make its findings upon remand?
|Add Docket 20090275 RSS|
|1||09/23/2009||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 09/21/2009|
|2||09/23/2009||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 09/21/2009|
|3||10/22/2009||RECORD ON APPEAL and separates including exhibits & transcripts dated 12-27-05, 3-20 & 21-07.|
|4||10/22/2009||Not forwarded with the record were Nos. 40, 98, 116, 123 & 154 (Tapes)|
|5||11/07/2009||TRANSCRIPT DATED January 26, 2009 & C.O.S.|
|6||11/07/2009||DISK - tra (1-26-09) (e-mailed)|
|7||12/17/2009||APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed)|
|8||12/17/2009||E-FILED BRIEF (ATB)|
|9||12/17/2009||APPELLANT APPENDIX (e-filed) PDF|
|10||12/17/2009||E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA) PDF|
|11||12/18/2009||Received $25 e-filing surcharge for ATB (Receipt #19276).|
|12||12/23/2009||Received 7 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating|
|13||12/23/2009||Received 6 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating|
|14||01/18/2010||APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed)|
|15||01/19/2010||E-FILED BRIEF (AEB)|
|16||01/20/2010||Received $25 surcharge for AEB (Receipt #19308)|
|17||01/25/2010||Received 7 copies of AEB from Central Duplicating|
|18||01/31/2010||REPLY BRIEF (e-filed)|
|19||01/31/2010||E-FILED BRIEF (RYB)|
|20||02/04/2010||Received 7 copies of RYB from CSD|
|21||02/16/2010||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|22||03/09/2010||APPEARANCES: Brent C. Johnson and Craig E. Johnson/Sara K. Sorenson|
|24||03/09/2010||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|26||08/17/2010||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Crothers, Daniel John|
|27||08/17/2010||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee|
|28||08/19/2010||Judgment Sent to Parties|
|30||09/24/2010||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|