Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C.

Decision Date20 March 2013
Docket NumberNo. C 11–4047–MWB.,C 11–4047–MWB.
Citation934 F.Supp.2d 1026
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
PartiesEdward P. HAGEN, D.O., Plaintiff, v. SIOUXLAND OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, P.C., an Iowa Corporation, Paul J. Eastman, M.D., Tauhni T. Hunt, M.D., Angela J. Aldrich, M.D., and Kimberly A. Lief, Defendants.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Stanley E. Munger, Jay Elliott Denne, Munger, Reinschmidt & Denne, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.

Annemarie M. Kelly, Barry G. Vermeer, Gislason & Hunter, LLP, Des Moines, IA, Dustan J. Cross, Gislason & Hunter LLP, New ULM, MN, Joseph L. Fitzgibbons, Fitzgibbons Law Office, Estherville, IA, Jeff W. Wright, Heidman Law Firm, LLC, Sioux City, IA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO STRIKE

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

+-------------------+
                ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS  ¦
                +-------------------¦
                ¦                   ¦
                +-------------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦I.  ¦INTRODUCTION                                           ¦1030  ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.  ¦Factual Background                                        ¦1030   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Siouxland                                             ¦1031  ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Expansion of Siouxland                                ¦1031  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦South Dakota                                      ¦1032  ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Minnesota                                         ¦1032  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦Hagen's behavior                                      ¦1032  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Prior behavior concerns                           ¦1033  ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Hagen's behavior at Siouxland and St. Luke's      ¦1033  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦4.  ¦Applications for medical licensure                    ¦1034  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Wisconsin application                             ¦1035  ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Minnesota application                             ¦1035  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦5.  ¦Hospital Incident on November 5, 2009                 ¦1037  ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦6.  ¦Termination                                           ¦1038  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦Procedural Background                                     ¦1041   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦     ¦                                                              ¦       ¦
                +-----+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦II.  ¦MOTION TO STRIKE                                              ¦1041   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.  ¦Standards For Motion To Strike                            ¦1042   ¦
                +----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦Analysis                                                  ¦1042   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦      ¦                                                             ¦       ¦
                +------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦III.  ¦MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT                          ¦1043   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.  ¦Summary Judgment Standards                                ¦1043   ¦
                +----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦The Licensure Application Claims                          ¦1044   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦  ¦1.  ¦Whether Siouxland, Eastman, Hunt, and Aldrich ratified Lief's actions in completing Hagen's licensure applications  ¦1044  ¦
                ¦    ¦  ¦    ¦                                                                                                                    ¦      ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦1044  ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Analysis                                          ¦1045  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Fraudulent misrepresentation                          ¦1045  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦1045  ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Analysis                                          ¦1045  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦Conspiracy to defraud                                 ¦1046  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦1046  ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Analysis                                          ¦1046  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦4.  ¦Forgery                                               ¦1046  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦1046  ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Analysis                                          ¦1047  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦5.  ¦Promissory estoppel                                   ¦1047  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦1048  ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Analysis                                          ¦1048  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦6.  ¦Tortious interference with prospective business advantage  ¦1048  ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Arguments of the parties                          ¦1048  ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Analysis                                          ¦1049  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦C.  ¦The Termination Claims                                    ¦1050   ¦
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Clasing v. Hormel Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • January 21, 2014
    ...1998).Royal Indem. Co. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 786 N.W.2d 839, 846 (Iowa 2010); see Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 934 F.Supp.2d 1026, 1053 (N.D.Iowa 2013) (citing Royal Indem. Co., 786 N.W.2d at 846, for the elements of a breach-of-contract claim under Iowa law); [993 ......
  • Hawkeye Land Co. v. ITC Midwest LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • August 11, 2015
    ...at the time of the tortious conduct." Id. (citing Nesler, 452 N.W.2d at 195–96 ).In Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 934 F.Supp.2d 1026, 1049 (N.D.Iowa 2013), a case that recently came before me, the parties similarly disputed whether the plaintiff "provided sufficient evid......
  • Cmty. Voiceline, L.L.C. v. Great Lakes Commc'n Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • January 31, 2014
    ...224 (Iowa 1998).Royal Indem. Co. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 786 N.W.2d 839, 846 (Iowa 2010); see Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Genecology, P.C., 934 F. Supp. 2d 1026, 1053 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (citing Royal Indem. Co., 786 N.W.2d at 846, for the elements of a breach-of-contract claim under Iow......
  • LM Ins. Corp. v. Dubuque Barge & Fleeting Serv. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • March 8, 2019
    ...Molo Oil Co. v. River City Ford Truck Sales, Inc., 578 N.W.2d 222, 224 (Iowa 1998)); see also Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Genecology, P.C., 934 F. Supp. 2d 1026, 1053 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (citing Royal Indem., 786 N.W.2d at 846, for the elements of a breach of contract claim under Iowa law)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT