DONOR NETWORK WEST v. Nevada Donor Network, Inc.
3:23-cv-00632
| D. Nev. | Jan 29, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Donor Network West (DNW) and Defendant Nevada Donor Network (NDN) are non-profit organ procurement organizations (OPOs) in Nevada, each designated to serve separate regions.
- DNW is the designated OPO for northern Nevada (including Renown Health), while NDN is designated for southern Nevada.
- DNW alleges that NDN induced Renown Health to terminate its exclusive agreement with DNW by promising $6 million in funding and making fraudulent representations about its own and DNW’s status and performance.
- DNW also accuses NDN of violating federal and state anti-kickback statutes and the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act through these inducements and misrepresentations.
- Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; NDN moved to dismiss all claims.
- The court ruled on both procedural (mootness of injunction request) and substantive (motion to dismiss) grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations | NDN intentionally disrupted DNW’s contract with Renown via inducement and misstatements. | Actions were justified/allowed or did not directly cause breach/disruption. | Sufficiently pled; motion to dismiss denied. |
| Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage | NDN targeted DNW’s prospective relationships with other northern Nevada hospitals using improper tactics. | Plaintiff failed to name specific relationships; actions justified. | Sufficiently pled; class of customers identified; motion denied. |
| Violation of Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act | NDN violated NDTPA by engaging in fraud and misrepresentation. | Not pled with required particularity; statute does not apply broadly. | Sufficiently pled under Rule 9(b); motion denied. |
| Violation of Nevada Unfair Trade Practices Act | NDN engaged in unlawful monopolization efforts. | Statutory and implied immunity; regulatory framework preempts claims. | Motion to dismiss granted (claim dismissed as unopposed). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (sets standard for sufficiency of pleadings under Rule 8)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (elaborates on plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Sutherland v. Gross, 772 P.2d 1287 (Nev. 1989) (sets out elements for intentional interference with contractual relations)
- J.J. Indus., LLC v. Bennett, 71 P.3d 1264 (Nev. 2003) (reaffirming elements for interference with contract in Nevada)
- Leavitt v. Leisure Sports, Inc., 734 P.2d 1221 (Nev. 1987) (elements for interference with prospective economic advantage)