Preview
CAUSE NO. 2017-43835
SAM ALAM, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
PLAINTIFF, §
§
Vv. §
§
ANDREW GOMES, MD, MAHENDRA §
AGRAHARKAR, MD, AJAY CHOUDRY, MD, § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
NATIONAL INTERVENTIONAL
RADIOLOGY PARTNERS, PLLC, NIRP §
MANAGEMENT, LLC, NIRP PASADENA, §
PLLC, NIRP SUGARLAND, PLLC,
DEFENDANTS. § 165" JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ INTERROGATORIES
Respectfully submitted,
THE WELSCHER MARTINEZ LAW FIRM
/s/ Nicholas Martinez
Craig Welscher
TBN: 21167200
Nicholas T. Martinez
TBN: 24087986
1111 North Loop West, Suite 702
Houston, Texas 77008
Telephone: (713) 862-0800
Facsimile: (713) 862-4003
Email: nmartinez@twmlawfirm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument was
forwarded to all known counsel of record in the manner required by the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure, on this the 24" day of September, 2018.
Via Email: kmckay@bakerdonelson.com
Kenneth E. McKay
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
1301 McKinney Street
Suite 3700
Houston, Texas 77010
Attorney for Defendants
/s/ Nicholas Martinez
Nicholas T. Martinez
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S INTERROGATORIES
TERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify by name, address and telephone number any person who
is expected to be called as a witness to testify at trial. This list is to include any impeachment
or rebuttal witnesses whose testimony can reasonably be anticipated before trial. If you
have enough information to anticipate the use of impeachment or rebuttal evidence or
witnesses, you must provide that information. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(d).
ANSWER: Please see Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendants’ Requests for Disclosure for a full
list of persons.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify all discoverable, consulting experts, that is consulting
experts whose work has been reviewed by the testifying expert . See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(e).
For each expert named, provide the following information:
a) The expert's name, address, and telephone number.
b) The expert's current résumé and bibliography.
c) The facts known to the expert that relate to or form the basis of the expert's mental
impressions and opinions formed or made in connection with the case, regardless of when
and how the factual information was acquired.
qd) The mental impressions or opinions of the expert formed or made in connection with
the case and any methods used to derive them.
e) Any bias of the expert.
A list of all documents and tangible things, including reports, models, or data
compilations, that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert.
ANSWER: There are no consulting experts at this time.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify each contract and/or agreement which Plaintiff claims
exists between it and any Defendant, include in your answer the parties to the contract
or agreement, date the contract or agreement was executed, and the manner in which
Defendants failed to perform under the contract or agreement.
ANSWER: Drs. Gomes, Chaudri, and Agraharkar met with Plaintiff individually and
collectively in excess of 50 times from February 2015 to June 2015. On March 10, 2015, Dr.
Gomes and Plaintiff entered into an agreement in which Plaintiff would own 25% of
equity/shareholdings and he would own 75% of equity in a Company to be formed by
attorney Jon Spiers. That Company would provide interventional procedures and bill health
insurance plans as its revenue base. This entire business was initiated, created, developed
and organized by Plaintiff. As per the agreement, Dr. Gomes and Plaintiff retained Jon D.
Spiers as counsel to form two entities LLC and LLP. Moreover, the entire business, its
concept, inner workings and financials were all “initiated and created” by Plaintiff fully and
completely — which Dr. Gomes acknowledged by saying “it is Sam’s brainchild”. Plaintiff
spent several hundred thousand dollars of his own money to get the business formulated and
up and running. The existence of a contract is evidence from the email on Tuesday, March
10, 2015 at 9:16am where Plaintiff wrote “I have come up with a business model that you
will love and I can get it done. I will charge $5,000 to get his started not thatI need the money
but to make it a legal business venture and 25% equity. If you are in agreement, send me a
confirmation email and I will disclose the business model. Defendant Gomes and Plaintiff
discussed the idea over the telephone and Defendant Gomes accepted my offer. Therefore,
on March 10, 2015, at 11:02pm with the title Formal Engagement, Defendant Gomes writes
me, “Let me know when you're ready for us to formally engage. I am more than willing to
"put my money where my mouth is". I want both projects to eventually GO, with formal
business plans and pro formas that we can use to get investors and lenders on board, and I
understand that to get to that stage with either or both of them will incur some costs — legal,
accounting, administrative, etc. I only ask that we keep these expenses as low as possible,
and instead of a fee or high fee for you, you consider equity in one or both projects instead.
I am confident both will be winners. Talk to you soon”. Valuable consideration (money,
services, etc.) is exchanged for the promise(s). Later Defendant Gomes writes to the lawyer
we are ready to form official entities, that Sam recommends Texas LLC and a Texas LP”
“Do you agree” and also affirms working with RMA an accounting firm to develop
financials. The lawyer Spiers writes back “our next steps are to organize the entities”...that
he would need to know the names of the entities and names of the officers and directors”.
Spiers sends in the LLC and LP questionnaires for Defendant Gomes and Plaintiff to fill out.
Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for his time and for his equity.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Describe the factual basis for your claim that Defendants
defrauded Plaintiff. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 11).
ANSWER: _Drs. Gomes is on the record admitting he was novice about healthcare business.
He is also on the record stating on many occasions he needed someone like me to help him
set up the business venture. He is also on the record admitting that defendant Ajay Choudri
was trustworthy and serving as a consultant. He is also on the record stating he wanted to
set up an Imaging Center which as records show is a failing business. In fact, Plaintiff was
the one that recommended Dr. Gomes do not set up an imaging center instead enter into a
high end and high reimbursement type of business. Defendant Chaudri was brought in by
Dr. Gomes as his trust worthy guide, who later stole Plaintiff’s work effort and my equity to
benefit himself and his family and Agraharkar who was supposed to be the landlord and
silent investor also stole Plaintiff’s property and benefitted from Plaintiff’s work effort.
There is ample record that the interventional business that they currently operate was
Plaintiff’s brainchild. And thus, they played a game to keep Plaintiff on until the entire
business was fully set up and ready to go. Once that happened they refused to honor the
agreement and told Plaintiff they had no intentions to pursue the business at all. Defendants
did indeed continue developing imaging center. There is not no doubt that the business they
currently operate was Plaintiff’s brain child that Plaintiff “initiated and created” fully and
completely.
INTERROGATORY _NO. 5: Describe the factual basis for your claim that Defendants
misappropriated Plaintiff's property. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 11).
ANSWER: There is ample record that Dr. Gomes, Choudri and Agraharkar individually
and collectively knew nothing about the business whatsoever. They lured Plaintiff into
developing this business and as soon as they were in possession of all the business elements
they told Plaintiff they had decided not to pursue the venture. A year later Plaintiff learned
that they never ceased to doing business and in fact they continued their business venture
but without Plaintiff. Defendants have in their possession Plaintiff’s implementation Plan,
business model, and outline for how to run a successful medical business that the Defendants
sought to run.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Describe the factual basis for your claim that Defendants had
a legal and/ or fiduciary duty to Plaintiff. Identify the specific legal and/ or fiduciary
duties Defendants' owe to Plaintiff
ANSWER: _Drs. Gomes, Chaudri, and Agraharkar met with Plaintiff individually and
collectively in excess of 50 times from February 2015 to June 2015. During this time, Dr.
Gomes offered Plaintiff 25% of shareholdings in a company that operated interventional
procedures. Dr. Gomes and Plaintiff retained Jon D Spiers as counsel to form the entities.
Moreover, the entire business, its concept, inner workings and financials were all “initiated
and created” by Plaintiff fully and completely. Alternatively, and specifically, Plaintiff
contends that a fiduciary relationship existed in this case when Defendant Gomes writes
attorney Jon Spiers, ’we are ready to form official entities, that Plaintiff (Sam) recommends
Texas LLC and a Texas LP” “Do you agree?”. Defendant Gomes also affirms working with
an accounting firm referred by Mr. Spiers to help develop financials. Further, the lawyer
writes back “our next steps are to organize the entities”...that he would need to know the
names of the entities and names of the officers and directors”. Mr. Spiers then sends in the
LLC and LP questionnaires for Defendant Gomes and Plaintiff to fill out. Later, Spires write
“to clarify-the two of you (Defendant Gomes and Plaintiff) are the only partners as of the
date of formation, correct - which follows with the formation document of Casper Radiology,
LLC and Casper Radiology, LP. Arguably, (i) the partner relationship existed between me
and Defendant Gomes material to this cause; (ii) Defendant Gomes was acting as partner of
the Plaintiff when he wrongfully solicited my contacts defendant Dr. Agraharkar and
circumvented plaintiff; (iii) Defendants Agraharkar, and Choudri knew that Plaintiff was a
partner of defendant Gomes when they conspired to remove me and take over his equity as
member manager in the company; (iv) Defendant Agraharkar and Choudri were acting as
partners for Defendant Gomes during the time period that they were considering to
misappropriate my confidential property; (v) Defendants made efforts to redirect Plaintiff’s
work effort and removed Plaintiff from the company; (v) Defendant Gomes as partners with
Plaintiff failed to safeguard and promptly inform Plaintiff of their pre-arranged meetings
with Defendant Agraharkar and Choudri, and (ix) Defendant Gomes knew that the
relationship with Plaintiff as his partner was one of a confidential nature. Thus, Defendants
owed Plaintiff the utmost duty of care, free from any deception or misrepresentation no
matter how slight. Additionally, Defendants at the very least owed Plaintiff the duty of
loyalty, honesty and utmost good faith and duty of candor.
INTERROGATORY_NO._7: Describe the factual basis for your claim that Defendants
fraudulently induced Plaintiff.
ANSWER: There is ample record, in fact, many emails from Dr. Gomes telling everyone
that the business they were getting into was my brainchild that Plaintiff developed it entirely,
fully and completely was fraudulent because Dr. Gomes later removed Plaintiff. Records
show the following errors and/or omissions collectively and each in the alternative as to the
conduct of Defendants, Gomes, Agraharkar, and Choudri: There is ample record that
Defendant Gomes requesting a meeting with me to set up a Diagnostic Imaging Center,
which he refers to as Comprehensive Outpatient Radiology Center (CORC); Defendant
Gomes sends me the Summary of the Project and Radiology punch for the project he called
CORC. He asked Plaintiff to keep the documents confidential...that the “project is not a go
yet”. Defendant Gomes informs Plaintiff that his partner Dr. Tuan Nguyen and DT Nguyen
brother of Tuan were angel investors. Defendant Gomes writes “our goal is to select the best
and most appropriate team to work with to make the venture successful” and says he is
working with “Woody and his network”. He then tempt me by saying “he doesn’t know if he
would give the work to “Woody and his network” or with me. Defendant Gomes praised me
saying “You are an expert and industry veteran” “what I seek to launch is a market
entrepreneurs approach to Radiology...I need the right team to do that with”. Defendant
Gomes and Plaintiff had a conversation in which I told defendant that CORC is dated and
no longer financially viable and sends a new proposal to develop a Short Term Acute Care
center, to that Defendant Gomes writes “your gist is pretty much correct. . But we definitely
need the help of financial experts to fine-tune this further” and sends a time-driven Google
Doc copy of the Lean Outpatient Radiology power point presentation — which he later
rescinds. After many weeks of discussions on the most optimum business model for
Defendant Gomes, on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 9:16am Plaintiff writes “I have come up
with a business model that you will love and I can get it done. I write, “consistent with my
email this morning and your request I disclose the business model here is the gist of
it . We set up the vascular center ...18 months you will have a dozen centers
nationwide... then you create a freestanding centers we will set up the entire program
beginning from one center to many in exchange for 25% equity. This model is easy to
implement, high margin, lost start-up cost... let me know what you think of it. Defendant
Gomes writes Interesting idea Sam. I would like to bring in a very good friend and IR
colleague of mine into this conversation - Dr. Ajay Choudri. I then recruited Defendant
Agraharkar who understood the contract and was willing to serve as landlord, physician
and investor. Defendant Choudri brought in by Defendant Gomes knew of the relationship
between Plaintiff and Defendant Gomes. Collectively Defendant Gomes, Agraharkar and
Choudri had a legal duty to act that is enforceable by law. Defendants owed a general duty
of care based on the circumstances (like the relationship between the parties, or local laws).
Arguably, attorney Spiers was forming companies creating an obligation arising from
contract of the parties or the operation of the law. That which the law requires to be done or
forborne to a determinate person or the public at large, correlative to a vested and
coextensive right in such person or the public, and the breach of which constitutes
negligence. Defendants Gomes, Agraharkar and Choudri failed to timely, properly and
adequately advice Plaintiff that a conflict existed and/or the consequences of the conflict.
The fact they enlisted defendant Choudri and Agraharkar as partners replacing the Plaintiff
they basically ceased to work with the Plaintiff and collectively misappropriated Plaintiff’s
property to setup a business by excluding Plaintiff. In other words, they were organizing
secret meetings and conspiring to deceive/remove Plaintiff and all the time failing to protect
Plaintiff’ interests. Not only that Defendants covertly formed new companies with new name
when Casper Radiology is the same as NIRP etc. in the google browser when someone types
in www.casperradiology.com the site that opens up is https://nationalirpartners.com/
affirming that casper radiology, llc and casper radiology, lp when originally formed are the
same as NIRP — national interventional radiology partners the name defendants operate
under today.
All the time they were organizing with the purpose of damaging Plaintiff and by redirecting
Plaintiff’s property they violated the law. In other words, defendants failed to promptly and
adequately take appropriate legal action against its partners/members to prevent them from
conspiring to damage Plaintiff and failed to refrain from self-dealing which extended to
dealings with persons whose interests were closely identified with those of the fiduciary and
with no integrity. Nothing Plaintiff did or failed to do caused or in any way contributed to
cause the occurrences which resulted in losses and damages to Plaintiff by engaging in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. The standards set about
above constitute gross negligence as that term is understood when supported by the expert
opinion of an attorney familiar with those standards of care. All of the foregoing violations
were a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damage.
INTERROGATORY_NO._8: Describe the factual basis for your claim that Defendants
violated the Texas Deceptive Trade and Practices Act.
ANSWER: Dr. Gomes told Plaintiff that he operated a Company out of New York, as an
enticement of its bigness and enormity. Plaintiff, as a consumer got trapped and Dr. Gomes
caused me damage. Please see Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatories numbers 3-8.
INTERROGATORY_NO._9: Describe the factual basis for your claim that Defendants
conspired against Plaintiff.
ANSWER: Dr. Gomes told Plaintiff that he would own 25% of equity. Plaintiff brought
Dr. Agraharkar to the venture as Landlord and Investor. Dr. Gomes convinced Plaintiff
that Dr. Choudri was a trust worthy person. Plaintiff later learned that Dr. Choudri and
Dr. Agraharkar ended up in a partnership with financial benefits. The 25% equity that
Plaintiff owned was later distributed among the 3 defendants. More importantly, Dr.
Gomes is on the record telling everyone associated with the project that the business
they currently operate was “my brainchild”. It is not that defendants Gomes,
Agraharkar, Choudri committed fraud against Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendants
Gomes, Agraharkar, and Choudri, and perhaps others conspired with Gomes to
organize a group made up of Gomes, Agraharkar, and Choudhry to sway Plaintiff’s
property away from the Plaintiff for the sole benefit of the Defendants. Defendant
Choudri painted as a trusted advisor became a member manager, shareholder;
Defendant Agraharkar from painted as a landlord became a member manager,
shareholder. Defendant Agraharker introduced to Defendant Gomes by Plaintiff knew
first hand that the OBL’s were Plaintiff’s brainchild conspired to remove Plaintiff from
the Company and take over his equity in the new company. Defendants knew of
Plaintiffs property and they wanted to own it. Defendants also had knowledge of their
intentions to damage the Plaintiff with specific intent to agree to accomplish the goal
withheld the information from Plaintiff. Without a doubt, Defendant Gomes was the
primary actor and Choudri and Agraharkar knew first hand of the deal and agreement
and thus became an accomplice to remove Plaintiff and take over. In doing so,
Defendants Choudri and Agraharkar working in concert assisted defendant Gomes the
primary actor in committing conspiracy.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify all representations Defendants made to Plaintiff which
you allege were false, fraudulent, reckless, and/ or made without knowledge of their truth.
ANSWER: See Plaintiff’s answers to interrogatories 1-21. Evidence shows that Defendants
are liable for damages based on negligent misrepresentation. Defendants met with
Plaintiff's investors Dr. Agraharkar covertly, discreetly, in private, and in the evening to
persuade them to wait before making investment with Plaintiff. Defendant Gomes asked
Spiers after Plaintiff had performed all obligations to stop the formation of Casper
Radiology LLC and LP that he had abandoned the project all together. Spiers wrote
“Defendant Gomes had asked him to do nothing on the companies”. Of course,
Defendants, in making the representations, did not exercise reasonable care and withheld
important and pertinent legal information and advice that would have benefitted Plaintiff
because Plaintiff had all along relied on that relied on the representations he was a 25%
equity partner to his detriment. Defendants negligently failed to disclose to Plaintiff that
they were meeting with defendant Choudri and Agraharkar the sole purpose to benefit
them by taking equity from Plaintiff and awarding to Defendant Choudri and
Agraharkar. Defendants negligently failed to disclose to Plaintiff that they had solicited
and tried to obtain investments from Choudri and Agraharkar in the furtherance of
creating their own business, with known and agreed upon efforts caused Plaintiff injury.
All of the foregoing acts or omissions were a proximate cause of Plaintiff’ damage.
INTERROGATORY_NO. _11: Identify all misrepresentations Defendants made to
Plaintiff. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 31.)
ANSWER: Dr. Gomes told me that I would own 25% equity in the Company if I helped
him create it. He told me that Dr. Choudri was trustworthy. Please see Plaintiff’s
responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories Nos. 1-10.
INTERROGATORY_NO. 12: Identify all legal obligations Defendants had to Plaintiff.
Include all documents codifying these obligations.
ANSWER: All documents are provide under a separate submittal Defendants breached
the contract and repudiated the agreement. Plaintiff performed all of its responsibilities
under the contract and has therefore been damaged by Defendants breach of contract.
According to Texas law, a contract is a promise with legal consequences that are formed
when an offer is made, On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 9:16am Plaintiff writes “I have
come up with a business model that you will love and I can get it done. I will charge $5,000
to get his started not that I need the money but to make it a legal business venture and
25% equity. If you are in agreement, send me a confirmation email and I will disclose the
business model. Defendant Gomes and Plaintiff discuss the idea over the telephone and
Defendant Gomes accepts Plaintiff offer. On March 10, 2015, at 11:02pm with the title
Formal Engagement, Defendant Gomes write Sam, Let me know when you're ready for
us to formally engage. I am more than willing to "put my money where my mouth is". I
want both projects to eventually GO, with formal business plans and pro formas that we
can use to get investors and lenders on board, and I understand that to get to that stage
with either or both of them will incur some costs — legal, accounting, administrative, etc.
I only ask that we keep these expenses as low as possible, and instead of a fee or high fee
for you, you consider equity in one or both projects instead. I am confident both will be
winners. Talk to you soon. Valuable consideration (money, services, etc.) is exchanged
for the promise(s). Later Defendant Gomes writes to the lawyer ”we are ready to form
official entities, that Plaintiff (Sam) recommends Texas LLC and a Texas LP” “Do you
agree” and also affirms working with RMA an accounting firm to develop financials. The
lawyer Spiers writes back “our next steps are to organize the entities”...that he would
need to know the names of the entities and names of the officers and directors”. Spiers
sends in the LLC and LP questionnaires for Defendant Gomes and Plaintiff to fill out. In
determining the existence of an oral contract, Texas courts look to the communications
between the parties and to the acts and circumstances surrounding those
communications. Def breached the contract when it was clear the plaintiff had performed
its obligation and plaintiff sustained damages from the breach. Gomes owed a fiduciary
obligation to Plaintiff since they were partners.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify all facts which support your claim that Defendants
tortuously interfered with Plaintiffs prospective business relations. (See Plaintiffs Petition
at paragraph 32.)
ANSWER: See Plaintiff’s answers to interrogatories 1-21. In the alternative and without
waiving any of the foregoing, Defendants’ acts and omissions constituted tortuous
interference with prospective business relations in that: (i) Defendants Choudri brought
in as a consultant and Agraharkar as a potential landlord and an investor intentionally
interfered with Plaintiff’s relationships; (ii) Defendants’ Choudri and Gomes conduct
was independently tortuous and unlawful; (iii) the interference proximately caused
Plaintiff? damage; and (iv) Plaintiff have suffered actual damage or loss. Records, show,
March 24, 2015 at 9:46am Donna write do you have the street address of Dr. Agraharkar
new center . On March 24, 2015 at 2:58pm Plaintiff writes “here is the corrected copy
of the LLC. On March 24, 2015 at 3:39pm attorney Spiers write “we will get on this and
sort it out. March 23, 2015 at 12:46pm Spiers write “I just spent some time with the
Texas secretary of state registration system Casper Radiology and variations are
available for your use. March 23, 2015, 12:55pm Plaintiff write we have Dr. Nguyen’s
brother as potential GP because he will make a large investment so keep it LLC instead
of PLLC. On March 23, 2015, 1:13pm Defendant Gomes write I will be on top of my
inbox and can execute documents via email. On March 23, 2105 at 5:48pm Spiers write
these will give me the information I need to set the entities up.
INTERROGATORY_NO. 14: Identify all facts which support your claim that Defendants
intended to damage Plaintiff's reputation. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 17-O.)
ANSWER: See Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory # 1-23
INTERROGATORY NO._15: Identify all of Plaintiff's confidential information that
Defendants used. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 17-Q.)
ANSWER: See Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory # 1-23
INTERROGATORY_NO. 16: Identify all of Plaintiff's actual damages attributable
to Defendants.
ANSWER: Plaintiff is owed 25% equity in perpetuity in the NIRP Entities that are
defendants in this case. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff spent over 1,200 manhours of putting
this business together, which amounts to roughly $540,000 dollars. Plaintiff’s damages
total up to roughly $3.0 million dollars
INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify all the specific incidents in which Defendants conspired
against Plaintiff.
ANSWER: See Plaintiff’s Response to Interrogatory # 9. More importantly, Dr. Gomes
is on the record telling everyone associated with the project that the business they
10
currently operate was “Plaintiff’s brainchild”.
INTERROGATORY _NO. 18: Identify all facts which support your claim that Defendants
sabotaged Plaintiff's business. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 38.)
ANSWER: See Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory # 1-23
INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Identify all the specific incidents in which Defendants misled
Plaintiff.
ANSWER: See Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory # 1-23
INTERROGATORY_NO._20: Identify all the specific incidents in which Defendants
redirected Plaintiff's property. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 17-J.)
ANSWER: The fact Dr. Gomes et, al are operating the same business that Plaintiff
created speaks volume of my credibility in forming the business and their dishonesty in
re-directing Plaintiff’s property for them. See Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory # 1-
23
INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify all the specific incidents of Defendants' self-dealing.
(See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 17-P.)
ANSWER: Dr. Gomes as a trustee and corporate officer had a fiduciary duty to
Plaintiff. He took advantage of his position in a transaction and acted in his own interests
rather than in the interests of the beneficiaries and shareholders, like Plaintiff.
INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Identify each and every document Defendants’ conspired to
steal from Plaintiff. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 22.)
ANSWER: See Response to Interrogatory # 9. More importantly, Dr. Gomes is on the
record telling everyone associated with the project that the business they currently
operate was “Plaintiff’s brainchild” and thus when he told Plaintiff’s he had decided not
to pursue the business Plaintiff believed him
INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Identify all facts which support your claim that any Defendant
had a partner relationship with Plaintiff. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 22.)
11
ANSWER: _Dr. Gomes and Plaintiff were the only two Partners in the Company. Plaintiff
requested 25% equity and $5,000 dollars to help put the Interventional Company together
and Dr. Gomes agreed. Plaintiff and Dr. Gomes then met with attorney Jon Spiers to initiate
the formation of the Companies (LLC and LLP). Both, Dr. Gomes and Plaintiff were
working as partners from the day Plaintiff proposed to create the Interventional enterprise
until he told Plaintiff he had decided not to pursue the venture. See Response to
Interrogatory # 1-23
12
Preview
CAUSE NO. 2017-43835 SAM ALAM, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PLAINTIFF, § § Vv. § § ANDREW GOMES, MD, MAHENDRA § AGRAHARKAR, MD, AJAY CHOUDRY, MD, § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS NATIONAL INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY PARTNERS, PLLC, NIRP § MANAGEMENT, LLC, NIRP PASADENA, § PLLC, NIRP SUGARLAND, PLLC, DEFENDANTS. § 165" JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ INTERROGATORIES Respectfully submitted, THE WELSCHER MARTINEZ LAW FIRM /s/ Nicholas Martinez Craig Welscher TBN: 21167200 Nicholas T. Martinez TBN: 24087986 1111 North Loop West, Suite 702 Houston, Texas 77008 Telephone: (713) 862-0800 Facsimile: (713) 862-4003 Email: nmartinez@twmlawfirm.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument was forwarded to all known counsel of record in the manner required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on this the 24" day of September, 2018. Via Email: kmckay@bakerdonelson.com Kenneth E. McKay Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC 1301 McKinney Street Suite 3700 Houston, Texas 77010 Attorney for Defendants /s/ Nicholas Martinez Nicholas T. Martinez PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S INTERROGATORIES TERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify by name, address and telephone number any person who is expected to be called as a witness to testify at trial. This list is to include any impeachment or rebuttal witnesses whose testimony can reasonably be anticipated before trial. If you have enough information to anticipate the use of impeachment or rebuttal evidence or witnesses, you must provide that information. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(d). ANSWER: Please see Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendants’ Requests for Disclosure for a full list of persons. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify all discoverable, consulting experts, that is consulting experts whose work has been reviewed by the testifying expert . See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(e). For each expert named, provide the following information: a) The expert's name, address, and telephone number. b) The expert's current résumé and bibliography. c) The facts known to the expert that relate to or form the basis of the expert's mental impressions and opinions formed or made in connection with the case, regardless of when and how the factual information was acquired. qd) The mental impressions or opinions of the expert formed or made in connection with the case and any methods used to derive them. e) Any bias of the expert. A list of all documents and tangible things, including reports, models, or data compilations, that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert. ANSWER: There are no consulting experts at this time. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify each contract and/or agreement which Plaintiff claims exists between it and any Defendant, include in your answer the parties to the contract or agreement, date the contract or agreement was executed, and the manner in which Defendants failed to perform under the contract or agreement. ANSWER: Drs. Gomes, Chaudri, and Agraharkar met with Plaintiff individually and collectively in excess of 50 times from February 2015 to June 2015. On March 10, 2015, Dr. Gomes and Plaintiff entered into an agreement in which Plaintiff would own 25% of equity/shareholdings and he would own 75% of equity in a Company to be formed by attorney Jon Spiers. That Company would provide interventional procedures and bill health insurance plans as its revenue base. This entire business was initiated, created, developed and organized by Plaintiff. As per the agreement, Dr. Gomes and Plaintiff retained Jon D. Spiers as counsel to form two entities LLC and LLP. Moreover, the entire business, its concept, inner workings and financials were all “initiated and created” by Plaintiff fully and completely — which Dr. Gomes acknowledged by saying “it is Sam’s brainchild”. Plaintiff spent several hundred thousand dollars of his own money to get the business formulated and up and running. The existence of a contract is evidence from the email on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 9:16am where Plaintiff wrote “I have come up with a business model that you will love and I can get it done. I will charge $5,000 to get his started not thatI need the money but to make it a legal business venture and 25% equity. If you are in agreement, send me a confirmation email and I will disclose the business model. Defendant Gomes and Plaintiff discussed the idea over the telephone and Defendant Gomes accepted my offer. Therefore, on March 10, 2015, at 11:02pm with the title Formal Engagement, Defendant Gomes writes me, “Let me know when you're ready for us to formally engage. I am more than willing to "put my money where my mouth is". I want both projects to eventually GO, with formal business plans and pro formas that we can use to get investors and lenders on board, and I understand that to get to that stage with either or both of them will incur some costs — legal, accounting, administrative, etc. I only ask that we keep these expenses as low as possible, and instead of a fee or high fee for you, you consider equity in one or both projects instead. I am confident both will be winners. Talk to you soon”. Valuable consideration (money, services, etc.) is exchanged for the promise(s). Later Defendant Gomes writes to the lawyer we are ready to form official entities, that Sam recommends Texas LLC and a Texas LP” “Do you agree” and also affirms working with RMA an accounting firm to develop financials. The lawyer Spiers writes back “our next steps are to organize the entities”...that he would need to know the names of the entities and names of the officers and directors”. Spiers sends in the LLC and LP questionnaires for Defendant Gomes and Plaintiff to fill out. Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for his time and for his equity. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Describe the factual basis for your claim that Defendants defrauded Plaintiff. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 11). ANSWER: _Drs. Gomes is on the record admitting he was novice about healthcare business. He is also on the record stating on many occasions he needed someone like me to help him set up the business venture. He is also on the record admitting that defendant Ajay Choudri was trustworthy and serving as a consultant. He is also on the record stating he wanted to set up an Imaging Center which as records show is a failing business. In fact, Plaintiff was the one that recommended Dr. Gomes do not set up an imaging center instead enter into a high end and high reimbursement type of business. Defendant Chaudri was brought in by Dr. Gomes as his trust worthy guide, who later stole Plaintiff’s work effort and my equity to benefit himself and his family and Agraharkar who was supposed to be the landlord and silent investor also stole Plaintiff’s property and benefitted from Plaintiff’s work effort. There is ample record that the interventional business that they currently operate was Plaintiff’s brainchild. And thus, they played a game to keep Plaintiff on until the entire business was fully set up and ready to go. Once that happened they refused to honor the agreement and told Plaintiff they had no intentions to pursue the business at all. Defendants did indeed continue developing imaging center. There is not no doubt that the business they currently operate was Plaintiff’s brain child that Plaintiff “initiated and created” fully and completely. INTERROGATORY _NO. 5: Describe the factual basis for your claim that Defendants misappropriated Plaintiff's property. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 11). ANSWER: There is ample record that Dr. Gomes, Choudri and Agraharkar individually and collectively knew nothing about the business whatsoever. They lured Plaintiff into developing this business and as soon as they were in possession of all the business elements they told Plaintiff they had decided not to pursue the venture. A year later Plaintiff learned that they never ceased to doing business and in fact they continued their business venture but without Plaintiff. Defendants have in their possession Plaintiff’s implementation Plan, business model, and outline for how to run a successful medical business that the Defendants sought to run. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Describe the factual basis for your claim that Defendants had a legal and/ or fiduciary duty to Plaintiff. Identify the specific legal and/ or fiduciary duties Defendants' owe to Plaintiff ANSWER: _Drs. Gomes, Chaudri, and Agraharkar met with Plaintiff individually and collectively in excess of 50 times from February 2015 to June 2015. During this time, Dr. Gomes offered Plaintiff 25% of shareholdings in a company that operated interventional procedures. Dr. Gomes and Plaintiff retained Jon D Spiers as counsel to form the entities. Moreover, the entire business, its concept, inner workings and financials were all “initiated and created” by Plaintiff fully and completely. Alternatively, and specifically, Plaintiff contends that a fiduciary relationship existed in this case when Defendant Gomes writes attorney Jon Spiers, ’we are ready to form official entities, that Plaintiff (Sam) recommends Texas LLC and a Texas LP” “Do you agree?”. Defendant Gomes also affirms working with an accounting firm referred by Mr. Spiers to help develop financials. Further, the lawyer writes back “our next steps are to organize the entities”...that he would need to know the names of the entities and names of the officers and directors”. Mr. Spiers then sends in the LLC and LP questionnaires for Defendant Gomes and Plaintiff to fill out. Later, Spires write “to clarify-the two of you (Defendant Gomes and Plaintiff) are the only partners as of the date of formation, correct - which follows with the formation document of Casper Radiology, LLC and Casper Radiology, LP. Arguably, (i) the partner relationship existed between me and Defendant Gomes material to this cause; (ii) Defendant Gomes was acting as partner of the Plaintiff when he wrongfully solicited my contacts defendant Dr. Agraharkar and circumvented plaintiff; (iii) Defendants Agraharkar, and Choudri knew that Plaintiff was a partner of defendant Gomes when they conspired to remove me and take over his equity as member manager in the company; (iv) Defendant Agraharkar and Choudri were acting as partners for Defendant Gomes during the time period that they were considering to misappropriate my confidential property; (v) Defendants made efforts to redirect Plaintiff’s work effort and removed Plaintiff from the company; (v) Defendant Gomes as partners with Plaintiff failed to safeguard and promptly inform Plaintiff of their pre-arranged meetings with Defendant Agraharkar and Choudri, and (ix) Defendant Gomes knew that the relationship with Plaintiff as his partner was one of a confidential nature. Thus, Defendants owed Plaintiff the utmost duty of care, free from any deception or misrepresentation no matter how slight. Additionally, Defendants at the very least owed Plaintiff the duty of loyalty, honesty and utmost good faith and duty of candor. INTERROGATORY_NO._7: Describe the factual basis for your claim that Defendants fraudulently induced Plaintiff. ANSWER: There is ample record, in fact, many emails from Dr. Gomes telling everyone that the business they were getting into was my brainchild that Plaintiff developed it entirely, fully and completely was fraudulent because Dr. Gomes later removed Plaintiff. Records show the following errors and/or omissions collectively and each in the alternative as to the conduct of Defendants, Gomes, Agraharkar, and Choudri: There is ample record that Defendant Gomes requesting a meeting with me to set up a Diagnostic Imaging Center, which he refers to as Comprehensive Outpatient Radiology Center (CORC); Defendant Gomes sends me the Summary of the Project and Radiology punch for the project he called CORC. He asked Plaintiff to keep the documents confidential...that the “project is not a go yet”. Defendant Gomes informs Plaintiff that his partner Dr. Tuan Nguyen and DT Nguyen brother of Tuan were angel investors. Defendant Gomes writes “our goal is to select the best and most appropriate team to work with to make the venture successful” and says he is working with “Woody and his network”. He then tempt me by saying “he doesn’t know if he would give the work to “Woody and his network” or with me. Defendant Gomes praised me saying “You are an expert and industry veteran” “what I seek to launch is a market entrepreneurs approach to Radiology...I need the right team to do that with”. Defendant Gomes and Plaintiff had a conversation in which I told defendant that CORC is dated and no longer financially viable and sends a new proposal to develop a Short Term Acute Care center, to that Defendant Gomes writes “your gist is pretty much correct. . But we definitely need the help of financial experts to fine-tune this further” and sends a time-driven Google Doc copy of the Lean Outpatient Radiology power point presentation — which he later rescinds. After many weeks of discussions on the most optimum business model for Defendant Gomes, on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 9:16am Plaintiff writes “I have come up with a business model that you will love and I can get it done. I write, “consistent with my email this morning and your request I disclose the business model here is the gist of it . We set up the vascular center ...18 months you will have a dozen centers nationwide... then you create a freestanding centers we will set up the entire program beginning from one center to many in exchange for 25% equity. This model is easy to implement, high margin, lost start-up cost... let me know what you think of it. Defendant Gomes writes Interesting idea Sam. I would like to bring in a very good friend and IR colleague of mine into this conversation - Dr. Ajay Choudri. I then recruited Defendant Agraharkar who understood the contract and was willing to serve as landlord, physician and investor. Defendant Choudri brought in by Defendant Gomes knew of the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant Gomes. Collectively Defendant Gomes, Agraharkar and Choudri had a legal duty to act that is enforceable by law. Defendants owed a general duty of care based on the circumstances (like the relationship between the parties, or local laws). Arguably, attorney Spiers was forming companies creating an obligation arising from contract of the parties or the operation of the law. That which the law requires to be done or forborne to a determinate person or the public at large, correlative to a vested and coextensive right in such person or the public, and the breach of which constitutes negligence. Defendants Gomes, Agraharkar and Choudri failed to timely, properly and adequately advice Plaintiff that a conflict existed and/or the consequences of the conflict. The fact they enlisted defendant Choudri and Agraharkar as partners replacing the Plaintiff they basically ceased to work with the Plaintiff and collectively misappropriated Plaintiff’s property to setup a business by excluding Plaintiff. In other words, they were organizing secret meetings and conspiring to deceive/remove Plaintiff and all the time failing to protect Plaintiff’ interests. Not only that Defendants covertly formed new companies with new name when Casper Radiology is the same as NIRP etc. in the google browser when someone types in www.casperradiology.com the site that opens up is https://nationalirpartners.com/ affirming that casper radiology, llc and casper radiology, lp when originally formed are the same as NIRP — national interventional radiology partners the name defendants operate under today. All the time they were organizing with the purpose of damaging Plaintiff and by redirecting Plaintiff’s property they violated the law. In other words, defendants failed to promptly and adequately take appropriate legal action against its partners/members to prevent them from conspiring to damage Plaintiff and failed to refrain from self-dealing which extended to dealings with persons whose interests were closely identified with those of the fiduciary and with no integrity. Nothing Plaintiff did or failed to do caused or in any way contributed to cause the occurrences which resulted in losses and damages to Plaintiff by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. The standards set about above constitute gross negligence as that term is understood when supported by the expert opinion of an attorney familiar with those standards of care. All of the foregoing violations were a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damage. INTERROGATORY_NO._8: Describe the factual basis for your claim that Defendants violated the Texas Deceptive Trade and Practices Act. ANSWER: Dr. Gomes told Plaintiff that he operated a Company out of New York, as an enticement of its bigness and enormity. Plaintiff, as a consumer got trapped and Dr. Gomes caused me damage. Please see Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatories numbers 3-8. INTERROGATORY_NO._9: Describe the factual basis for your claim that Defendants conspired against Plaintiff. ANSWER: Dr. Gomes told Plaintiff that he would own 25% of equity. Plaintiff brought Dr. Agraharkar to the venture as Landlord and Investor. Dr. Gomes convinced Plaintiff that Dr. Choudri was a trust worthy person. Plaintiff later learned that Dr. Choudri and Dr. Agraharkar ended up in a partnership with financial benefits. The 25% equity that Plaintiff owned was later distributed among the 3 defendants. More importantly, Dr. Gomes is on the record telling everyone associated with the project that the business they currently operate was “my brainchild”. It is not that defendants Gomes, Agraharkar, Choudri committed fraud against Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendants Gomes, Agraharkar, and Choudri, and perhaps others conspired with Gomes to organize a group made up of Gomes, Agraharkar, and Choudhry to sway Plaintiff’s property away from the Plaintiff for the sole benefit of the Defendants. Defendant Choudri painted as a trusted advisor became a member manager, shareholder; Defendant Agraharkar from painted as a landlord became a member manager, shareholder. Defendant Agraharker introduced to Defendant Gomes by Plaintiff knew first hand that the OBL’s were Plaintiff’s brainchild conspired to remove Plaintiff from the Company and take over his equity in the new company. Defendants knew of Plaintiffs property and they wanted to own it. Defendants also had knowledge of their intentions to damage the Plaintiff with specific intent to agree to accomplish the goal withheld the information from Plaintiff. Without a doubt, Defendant Gomes was the primary actor and Choudri and Agraharkar knew first hand of the deal and agreement and thus became an accomplice to remove Plaintiff and take over. In doing so, Defendants Choudri and Agraharkar working in concert assisted defendant Gomes the primary actor in committing conspiracy. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify all representations Defendants made to Plaintiff which you allege were false, fraudulent, reckless, and/ or made without knowledge of their truth. ANSWER: See Plaintiff’s answers to interrogatories 1-21. Evidence shows that Defendants are liable for damages based on negligent misrepresentation. Defendants met with Plaintiff's investors Dr. Agraharkar covertly, discreetly, in private, and in the evening to persuade them to wait before making investment with Plaintiff. Defendant Gomes asked Spiers after Plaintiff had performed all obligations to stop the formation of Casper Radiology LLC and LP that he had abandoned the project all together. Spiers wrote “Defendant Gomes had asked him to do nothing on the companies”. Of course, Defendants, in making the representations, did not exercise reasonable care and withheld important and pertinent legal information and advice that would have benefitted Plaintiff because Plaintiff had all along relied on that relied on the representations he was a 25% equity partner to his detriment. Defendants negligently failed to disclose to Plaintiff that they were meeting with defendant Choudri and Agraharkar the sole purpose to benefit them by taking equity from Plaintiff and awarding to Defendant Choudri and Agraharkar. Defendants negligently failed to disclose to Plaintiff that they had solicited and tried to obtain investments from Choudri and Agraharkar in the furtherance of creating their own business, with known and agreed upon efforts caused Plaintiff injury. All of the foregoing acts or omissions were a proximate cause of Plaintiff’ damage. INTERROGATORY_NO. _11: Identify all misrepresentations Defendants made to Plaintiff. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 31.) ANSWER: Dr. Gomes told me that I would own 25% equity in the Company if I helped him create it. He told me that Dr. Choudri was trustworthy. Please see Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories Nos. 1-10. INTERROGATORY_NO. 12: Identify all legal obligations Defendants had to Plaintiff. Include all documents codifying these obligations. ANSWER: All documents are provide under a separate submittal Defendants breached the contract and repudiated the agreement. Plaintiff performed all of its responsibilities under the contract and has therefore been damaged by Defendants breach of contract. According to Texas law, a contract is a promise with legal consequences that are formed when an offer is made, On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 9:16am Plaintiff writes “I have come up with a business model that you will love and I can get it done. I will charge $5,000 to get his started not that I need the money but to make it a legal business venture and 25% equity. If you are in agreement, send me a confirmation email and I will disclose the business model. Defendant Gomes and Plaintiff discuss the idea over the telephone and Defendant Gomes accepts Plaintiff offer. On March 10, 2015, at 11:02pm with the title Formal Engagement, Defendant Gomes write Sam, Let me know when you're ready for us to formally engage. I am more than willing to "put my money where my mouth is". I want both projects to eventually GO, with formal business plans and pro formas that we can use to get investors and lenders on board, and I understand that to get to that stage with either or both of them will incur some costs — legal, accounting, administrative, etc. I only ask that we keep these expenses as low as possible, and instead of a fee or high fee for you, you consider equity in one or both projects instead. I am confident both will be winners. Talk to you soon. Valuable consideration (money, services, etc.) is exchanged for the promise(s). Later Defendant Gomes writes to the lawyer ”we are ready to form official entities, that Plaintiff (Sam) recommends Texas LLC and a Texas LP” “Do you agree” and also affirms working with RMA an accounting firm to develop financials. The lawyer Spiers writes back “our next steps are to organize the entities”...that he would need to know the names of the entities and names of the officers and directors”. Spiers sends in the LLC and LP questionnaires for Defendant Gomes and Plaintiff to fill out. In determining the existence of an oral contract, Texas courts look to the communications between the parties and to the acts and circumstances surrounding those communications. Def breached the contract when it was clear the plaintiff had performed its obligation and plaintiff sustained damages from the breach. Gomes owed a fiduciary obligation to Plaintiff since they were partners. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify all facts which support your claim that Defendants tortuously interfered with Plaintiffs prospective business relations. (See Plaintiffs Petition at paragraph 32.) ANSWER: See Plaintiff’s answers to interrogatories 1-21. In the alternative and without waiving any of the foregoing, Defendants’ acts and omissions constituted tortuous interference with prospective business relations in that: (i) Defendants Choudri brought in as a consultant and Agraharkar as a potential landlord and an investor intentionally interfered with Plaintiff’s relationships; (ii) Defendants’ Choudri and Gomes conduct was independently tortuous and unlawful; (iii) the interference proximately caused Plaintiff? damage; and (iv) Plaintiff have suffered actual damage or loss. Records, show, March 24, 2015 at 9:46am Donna write do you have the street address of Dr. Agraharkar new center . On March 24, 2015 at 2:58pm Plaintiff writes “here is the corrected copy of the LLC. On March 24, 2015 at 3:39pm attorney Spiers write “we will get on this and sort it out. March 23, 2015 at 12:46pm Spiers write “I just spent some time with the Texas secretary of state registration system Casper Radiology and variations are available for your use. March 23, 2015, 12:55pm Plaintiff write we have Dr. Nguyen’s brother as potential GP because he will make a large investment so keep it LLC instead of PLLC. On March 23, 2015, 1:13pm Defendant Gomes write I will be on top of my inbox and can execute documents via email. On March 23, 2105 at 5:48pm Spiers write these will give me the information I need to set the entities up. INTERROGATORY_NO. 14: Identify all facts which support your claim that Defendants intended to damage Plaintiff's reputation. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 17-O.) ANSWER: See Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory # 1-23 INTERROGATORY NO._15: Identify all of Plaintiff's confidential information that Defendants used. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 17-Q.) ANSWER: See Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory # 1-23 INTERROGATORY_NO. 16: Identify all of Plaintiff's actual damages attributable to Defendants. ANSWER: Plaintiff is owed 25% equity in perpetuity in the NIRP Entities that are defendants in this case. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff spent over 1,200 manhours of putting this business together, which amounts to roughly $540,000 dollars. Plaintiff’s damages total up to roughly $3.0 million dollars INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify all the specific incidents in which Defendants conspired against Plaintiff. ANSWER: See Plaintiff’s Response to Interrogatory # 9. More importantly, Dr. Gomes is on the record telling everyone associated with the project that the business they 10 currently operate was “Plaintiff’s brainchild”. INTERROGATORY _NO. 18: Identify all facts which support your claim that Defendants sabotaged Plaintiff's business. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 38.) ANSWER: See Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory # 1-23 INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Identify all the specific incidents in which Defendants misled Plaintiff. ANSWER: See Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory # 1-23 INTERROGATORY_NO._20: Identify all the specific incidents in which Defendants redirected Plaintiff's property. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 17-J.) ANSWER: The fact Dr. Gomes et, al are operating the same business that Plaintiff created speaks volume of my credibility in forming the business and their dishonesty in re-directing Plaintiff’s property for them. See Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory # 1- 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify all the specific incidents of Defendants' self-dealing. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 17-P.) ANSWER: Dr. Gomes as a trustee and corporate officer had a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff. He took advantage of his position in a transaction and acted in his own interests rather than in the interests of the beneficiaries and shareholders, like Plaintiff. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Identify each and every document Defendants’ conspired to steal from Plaintiff. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 22.) ANSWER: See Response to Interrogatory # 9. More importantly, Dr. Gomes is on the record telling everyone associated with the project that the business they currently operate was “Plaintiff’s brainchild” and thus when he told Plaintiff’s he had decided not to pursue the business Plaintiff believed him INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Identify all facts which support your claim that any Defendant had a partner relationship with Plaintiff. (See Plaintiff's Petition at paragraph 22.) 11 ANSWER: _Dr. Gomes and Plaintiff were the only two Partners in the Company. Plaintiff requested 25% equity and $5,000 dollars to help put the Interventional Company together and Dr. Gomes agreed. Plaintiff and Dr. Gomes then met with attorney Jon Spiers to initiate the formation of the Companies (LLC and LLP). Both, Dr. Gomes and Plaintiff were working as partners from the day Plaintiff proposed to create the Interventional enterprise until he told Plaintiff he had decided not to pursue the venture. See Response to Interrogatory # 1-23 12