Dr. Erik Natkin, DO PC v. Am. Osteopathic Ass'n
| Decision Date | 22 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:16-cv-01494-SB |
| Parties | DR. ERIK NATKIN, DO PC, a Utah corporation; and DR. ERIK NATKIN, DO, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Benjamin Natkin, LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN NATKIN, 3520 Overland Avenue, Suite A1, Los Angeles, CA 90034; Clark E. Rasche, WATKINSON LAIRD RUBENSTEIN, PC, 101 E Broadway, Suite 200, PO Box 10567, Eugene OR 97440. Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
John F. McGrory, Jr. and Blake J. Robinson, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, 1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400, Portland OR 97201. Of Attorneys for Defendants Samaritan Health Services, Inc., Good Samaritan Hospital Corvallis, Albany General Hospital, Mid-Valley Healthcare, Inc., Samaritan Pacific Health Services, Inc., Samaritan North Lincoln Hospital, and Dr. Luis R. Vela, DO.
Michael Porter, MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP, 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower, 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204; Mark H. Meyerhoff and Christopher S. Frederick, LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE, 6033 West Century Boulevard, Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90045. Of Attorneys for Defendant Western University of Health Sciences.
Michael C. Lewton, COSGRAVE VERGEER KESTER LLP, 888 SW Fifth Avenue, suite 500, Portland, OR 97204; John R. Danos, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, 555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2900, Los Angeles, CA 90071. Of Attorneys for Defendant American Osteopathic Association.
Thomas R. Rask , III, Kell Alterman & Runstein, LLP, 520 SW Yamhill Street, Suite 600, Portland, OR 97204; Robert P. Johnston, Law Offices of Vera and Barbosa, 223 West Foothill Boulevard, Second Floor, Claremont, CA 91711. Of Attorneys for Defendant Osteopathic Postdoctoral Training Institute, OPTI-West Educational Consortium.
United States Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") in this case on October 18, 2018. ECF 174. Judge Beckerman recommended that the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Samaritan Health Services, Inc. ("SHSI"), Good Samaritan Hospital Corvallis ("Good Sam"), Albany General Hospital, Mid-Valley Healthcare, Inc., Samaritan Pacific Health Services, Inc., Samaritan North Lincoln Hospital, (collectively, the "Sister Hospitals") (SHSI, Good Sam, and the Sister Hospitals are collectively referred to as the "Samaritan Entities") and Dr. Luis R. Vela, DO ("Vela") (collectively with the Samaritan Entities, the "Samaritan Defendants"); American Osteopathic Association ("AOA"); Western University of Health Sciences ("Western"); and Osteopathic Postdoctoral Training Institute, OPTI-West Educational Consortium ("OPTI-West") be granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiffs Dr. Erik Natkin, DO ("Natkin") and Dr. Erik Natkin, DO PC ("Natkin PC") timely filed an objection (ECF 183), as did each of the Defendants. ECF 180 (OPTI-West); ECF 179 (Samaritan Defendants); ECF 178 (Western); ECF 177 (AOA). The Court reviews de novo those portions of Judge Beckerman's F&R to which Plaintiffs and Defendants have objected. In so doing, the Court has considered the objections, the responses, the F&R, the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), and the underlying briefing before Judge Beckerman. For the reasonsdiscussed below, the Court adopts in part the F&R. The motions to dismiss are granted in part and denied in part.
STANDARDS
Under the Federal Magistrates Act ("Act"), the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate's findings and recommendations, "the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
For those portions of a magistrate's findings and recommendations to which neither party has objected, the Act prescribes no standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (); United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (). Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Magistrates Act "does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that "[w]hen no timely objection is filed," the Court review the magistrate's recommendations for "clear error on the face of the record."
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be granted only when there is no cognizable legal theory to support the claim or when the complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs.,Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint's factual allegations, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded material facts alleged in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012); Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). To be entitled to a presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint "may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively." Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). All reasonable inferences from the factual allegations must be drawn in favor of the plaintiff. Newcal Indus. v. Ikon Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038, 1043 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008). The court need not, however, credit the plaintiff's legal conclusions that are couched as factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).
A complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to "plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation." Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)).
BACKGROUND
A more detailed background was set out in the F&R (ECF 126) on the motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Most of the same factual allegations, along with some new factual allegations, are included in the SAC. Briefly, Plaintiff Dr. Erik E. Natkin was a resident at Good Sam, a subsidiary of SHSI and sister-hospital to the other Samaritan Entity hospitals. Plaintiffs allege that Natkin was unfairly targeted by Vela, a Residency Program Director and Director ofMedical Education ("DME") at Natkin's residency program. After receiving positive performance reviews, Vela accused Natkin of colluding with another resident to portray an attending physician in a negative light. Vela also allegedly violated the bylaws and other governing documents of the residency program by having Natkin suspended and ultimately terminated, without appropriate process.
Vela allegedly conveyed false and misleading information about Natkin to the Oregon Medical Board, which required Natkin to undergo a six-month investigation to clear his medical license. Vela also allegedly conveyed false and misleading information about Natkin to the Federation of State Medical Boards' Credential Verification Service ("FCVS"), which allegedly precluded Natkin from completing his residency in orthopedic surgery and obtaining Board certification. These actions also have caused difficulty for Natkin in obtaining medical licenses in other states and in practicing as a covered doctor under certain insurance plans. Finally, Vela allegedly defamed Natkin to many other doctors throughout the country, preventing Natkin from obtaining other jobs, including a fourth-year orthopedic surgical residency specially-created for Natkin in Philadelphia. The program director in Philadelphia withdrew the job offer after he contacted Vela, who allegedly conveyed false and misleading information about Natkin.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs object that the F&R: (1) improperly concluded that Defendants were not engaged in a conspiracy or joint venture and improperly rejected the alleged agency relationship between the parties; (2) improperly found that Plaintiffs alleged no antitrust injury; (3) improperly dismissed Plaintiffs' fraud claim; (4) improperly dismissed Plaintiffs' fair procedure claim against AOA; (5) improperly concluded that Plaintiffs' wrongful termination claims are not statutory claims; (6) improperly evaluated the contract claims because AOA, OPTI-West, SHSI, Good Sam, and the Sister Hospitals were either parties to certain contractsthrough agency or conspiracy and are liable for breach of contract or they are not parties to the contracts and are liable for interference with contract; (7) failed properly to evaluate certain aspects of Plaintiffs' defamation claims and intentional interference with economic relations based on defamation; (8) failed to address all the reasons proffered by Plaintiffs in arguing against OPTI-West's reliance on the Horowitz doctrine; and (9) improperly dismissed Plaintiffs' California Fair Practices Act Claim.1 Plaintiffs also raise the new argument that Defendants should be judicially estopped from disputing their interconnected relationships because th...
To continue reading
Request your trial