Breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from an employment relationship; Witness testimony about fiduciary duty; MRE 701; Employment contract breach; Implied covenant of good faith & fair dealing; Jury instructions; Fraudulent inducement; Civil conspiracy; Harmless error; Motion in limine to exclude damages testimony; Severe discovery sanctions; Judicial bias; Control of courtroom proceedings; MRE 611(a); Disqualification grounds; MCR 2.003(C)(1)(b); The trial court’s motion practice; A trial court’s inherent authority to control its own docket

The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a motion to dismiss defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty. In addition, a directed verdict was properly denied as to breach of contract and fraudulent inducement counterclaims. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion in limine that “was essentially a motion to penalize defendants by disallowing monetary damages.” Finally, it rejected claims of judicial bias and challenges to the trial court’s motion practice. Plaintiff-Titan is a financial services firm owned by the third-party defendants (referred to collectively as the Titan parties). Three of the defendants (collectively referred to as the advisors) were employed as financial advisors by Titan, with employment contracts containing noncompete and nonsolicitation provisions. After defendants resigned from Titan, the Titan parties sued them, asserting “claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and related business torts. Defendants filed a counterclaim against Titan and a third-party complaint against” its owners, asserting, among other things, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent inducement claims. On appeal, the court first determined that defendants’ allegations were sufficient for their “breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim to withstand a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8). They alleged more than the existence of an employment relationship; they alleged that the Titan parties received commission payments that included amounts to which the advisors were entitled. This placed the Titan parties in a position of trust and confidence because it was up to them to ensure that the commissions were properly distributed. This was not an ordinary employment relationship in which the employer paid a set salary to employees. Instead, the employment relationship involved receiving payments that the advisors earned out of money received from” a nonparty (S), and then passed to a third-party defendant. The same analysis applied “to the trial court’s denial of the Titan parties’ motion for a directed verdict.” The court further concluded that “the trial court did not err in accepting defendants’ argument that they could claim breach of” a group production agreement with S “based on an implied-covenant breach.” Affirmed.