A complaint originally was filed on March 15, in New Hampshire state court by plaintiff Reliant Life Sciences, LLC was removed to federal court Friday by defendants AGC Biologics and Daigle Computer Systems, Inc.
The plaintiff is a “staffing company that arranges for consultants to fill vacancies for discrete projects in biotechnology, medical device, and pharmaceutical companies across the country.” The clients that Reliant staffs pay Reliant a fee for the services from Reliant’s consultants.
Due to the nature of their work, Reliant said that it must maintain beneficial relationships with consultants who are willing to take on temporary assignments as well as biotechnology, medical device, and pharmaceutical companies who need to fill temporary vacancies. When contracting out a consultant, Reliant enters into two agreements, one with the consultant and one with the company, agreeing to the dates for which the services will be provided. Defendant AGC works with the plaintiff to fill vacancies within their company. Defendant Daigle relies on Reliant to coordinate placements for their consultants, per the complaint.
The complaint explained that iIn November of 2021, AGC signed a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with Reliant. When the MSA was signed, Reliant was in the process of onboarding Daigle to consult with AGC, per the terms of the MSA.
Reliant has previously sent AGC the statement of services, which detailed that any consultant working at AGC would be responsible for submitting “a weekly timesheet to AGC and Reliant reflecting the hours worked and any reasonable expenses occurred.” If AGC did not object to the timesheet within five days, the timesheet would be deemed suitable and could no longer be altered, and Reliant would generate an invoice to send to AGC. AGC agreed to “reimburse Reliant for all costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred seeking collection of overdue amounts.”
Daigle signed an Independent Subcontractor Agreement and Statement of Work with Reliant. Specifically, they agreed to work for AGC through Reliant for one year and that they would receive payment according to the AGC-approved timesheets.
The respective agreements also prohibit Daigle and AGC entering into an employment relationship with one another within one year of the expiration of the agreements. If AGC is to recruit employees from Daigle, both parties will be subject to damages per the agreement. Either party could terminate their agreement by providing 60 days’ notice to Reliant, but termination would not relieve AGC of their obligations to pay for fees and expenses.
In October of 2021, AGC contacted Reliant and directed them to have Daigle commence work for them. The complaint asserts that AGC also represented that they would send the signed MSA and statement of services.
Just two weeks into Daigle’s work for AGC, AGC requested that they modify one of their submitted timesheets. After revising, Daigle resubmitted the timesheet. When AGC failed to reject it within five days, Reliant accepted the timesheet and issued a corresponding invoice to AGC. AGC then directed that Daigle stop work on the project, a request which Reliant relayed to Daigle and honored. AGC then stopped communicating with Reliant and failed to pay Reliant for the services Daigle rendered to AGC for the brief two weeks that the agreement stood.
Following this, the complaint explains that “AGC made other arrangements with Daigle through another staffing agency to employ Daigle for the same services he was providing on the Project as a Reliant consultant.” Reliant contends that the defendants engaged in breach of contract, interference with contract, civil conspiracy, and violated the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act. The defendants are seeking damages and any other relief deemed necessary by the Court.
The plaintiff is represented by Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, P.A., while the defendants are represented by Plante & Hanley.
