Case Information
*1 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
‐‐‐‐ ooOoo ‐‐‐‐ Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC, ) OPINION
)
Plaintiff Appellant, ) Case No. )
v. ) F I L E D
) (February 2012) Intermountain Healthcare, Utah ) University, )
)
Defendants Appellee. )
‐‐‐‐‐
First District, Logan Department, Honorable Clint S. Judkins
Attorneys: Peter Stirba Blake Hamilton, Salt Lake City, Appellant
Alan L. Sullivan Troy L. Booher, Salt Lake City, Appellee ‐‐‐‐‐
Before Judges Davis, Thorne, Christiansen.
CHRISTIANSEN, Judge: Plaintiff (Alpine) appeals court’s defendant Intermountain Healthcare, Inc.
(IHC). We affirm.
BACKGROUND [1] In March 2001, Utah State University (USU) entered into personal service
agreement (the Agreement) Alpine to provide team services for USU’s intercollegiate athletic program (the services). designated Dr. Jonathan Finnoff provide services to spring and Dr. discussed possibility Dr. leaving his employment work IHC. employment never materialized apparent concerns regarding proposed salary, noncompete agreement between Dr. Finnoff, and doctor’s lack desire live Logan, Utah long term. continued work provide services USU until he moved Oregon spring Following Finnoff’s departure, continued provide services for USU.
¶3 Although contained automatic five ‐ year renewal provision, in February USU issued request proposals (RFP) soliciting competitive bids for services provided under Agreement. disagreed USU’s decision automatically RFP, appealed decision Chief Procurement Officer (the CPO). CPO agreed RFP, therefore, continued accept competitive bids. Despite being informed could seek judicial as provided statutes, see Utah Code Ann. §§ 63G ‐ 815(1)(a), ‐ 817(1)(b) (2011), CPO ʹ s ruling. After completing bidding process, awarded IHC. We recite “‘the all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom light most favorable party.’” Orvis v. Johnson P.3d (citation omitted); Mountain States Tel. Tel. Atkin, Wright & Miles, Chartered (Utah 1984) (“Doubts, uncertainties inferences concerning issues construed light most favorable party opposing judgment.”). A complete background contractual relationship between and presented University ¶¶
¶4 Alpine sued breach of for intentional contractual economic relations (the claims). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of After district court certified as final its grant summary judgment, Utah R. Civ. P. 54(b), appealed. IHC attempted intervene that appeal, court denied request. This court affirmed district court’s grant summary judgment because timely that entitled Univ. ¶¶ ¶5 Meanwhile, February filed a motion judgment arguing that upon before court, it entitled summary judgment as matter law. In response, filed reply a rule 56(f) motion requesting it given time respond deadline expert discovery yet expired. Moreover, informed court it planned to retain expert acted improperly violating an established professional standard September district court denied rule 56(f) granted judgment favor. district determined fulfill its requirement “show[ing] there [was] genuine material fact for trial” “not set specific showing [IHC] [Alpine]’s existing potential relations, [IHC] acted purpose means, [IHC] any [Alpine].” now appeals.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶6 Alpine improperly judgment “Summary is appropriate where there are issues moving matter law. We court’s correctness afford no deference legal conclusions.” Salt Lake City Corp. Big Ditch Irrigation (citing Civ. P. 56(c)).
ANALYSIS To establish its claims against IHC, “‘must prove
(1) . . . [IHC] intentionally interfered . . . [Alpine]’s existing potential relations, an purpose by means, (3) causing . . . [Alpine].’” v. William Hunt, Inc. , UT 49, ¶ 35, 221 P.3d (additional internal omitted) (quoting Benedict’s Dev. Co. v. St. Benedict’s Hosp. , P.2d (Utah 1991)).
A summary movant, on an issue where the nonmoving party will bear burden proof at trial, may satisfy burden showing, by reference “the pleadings, depositions, answers interrogatories, admissions file, together affidavits, if any,” there is genuine material fact. Civ. P. 56(c). Upon showing, whether or supported additional affirmative factual evidence, burden then shifts nonmoving party, who “may not rest upon mere allegations denials pleadings,” “must set specific showing there a genuine trial.” Id. [R. 56](e).
Orvis v. Johnson ¶ P.3d
¶8 Alpine Agreement IHC away from while still in effect. submit would dispute material fact preclude judgment. generally Overstock.com, SmartBargains, Inc. ¶ (“A party disputing burden disputing motion material facts.”); Waddoups Amalgamated Sugar (“The than just conclusory assertions issue exists issue.”). Notably, that leave work did dispute “Dr. testified interfere his relationship Alpine” “motivation re bidding team . . twofold: (a) . bid lawfully 2000; and, (b) needed protect itself not be dependant on any one individual physician.” Alpine produced evidence that IHC’s attempted recruitment Dr. caused USU issue the RFP caused USU award the contract
¶9 Given undisputed facts, IHC a matter law. Alpine’s only argument that IHC intentionally interfered with Agreement recruiting Dr. Finnoff. However, undisputed facts precluded from establishing any causal connection between IHC’s attempted recruitment Dr. in not Agreement issue RFP Thus, issue RFP not IHC’s attempted recruitment Dr. Finnoff, did not establish Agreement. ¶10 For similar reasons, facts precluded from demonstrating IHC’s actions caused injury. See ¶ (setting elements intentional claims). Alpine claimed IHC’s Alpine’s employment injured lost did provide any evidence support allegation IHC’s recruitment caused USU issue RFP previously provided Alpine. Waddoups , ¶ (“The party must than just conclusory assertions issue exists issue.”); see, e.g. On appeal, knew many years. Although parties’ motions what details knew about Agreement, explained how knowledge had expressed interest procuring similar agreement future Furthermore, arguments address these instead focused IHC’s recruitment Finnoff. Thus, preserve argument appeal. See Main Easy Heat, (“For trial be afforded opportunity correct error (1) must be raised timely fashion[,] specifically raised[,] (3) challenging must introduce supporting relevant legal authority. Issues are raised at trial are usually deemed waived.” (alterations original) (citation internal omitted)). *6 Anderson Dev. Tobias 2005 UT ¶¶ 33 ‐ 116 323 (evaluating whether sufficient were regarding claims preclude judgment).
¶11 Not only failed to connect IHC’s actions attempting to Dr. to USU’s decision to the RFP, also to properly challenge USU’s decision the RFP. See Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC State Univ. 2011 App ¶¶ 13 ‐ 263 Alpine’s failure properly appeal the CPO’s decision affirming issuance of the RFP resulted USU’s continued acceptance of bids ultimate award of the contract IHC. Had properly appealed the decision, the bid process would have stayed pending judicial review of issuance of the See Code Ann. § 63G ‐ ‐ 802 (“In the event of timely protest state shall not proceed further solicitation or award contract until all administrative judicial remedies have been exhausted or until chief procurement officer, after consultation head the using agency head purchasing agency, makes written determination award contract without delay necessary protect substantial interests state.”); id. § 63G ‐ 817(1) (setting time requirements filing judicial an agency’s decision fourteen twenty days); ¶¶ n.5. fact, once CPO upheld USU‘s not bid. action IHC’s RFP, No submitted Agreement. Rather, Alpine’s own actions properly appealing CPO’s led award Because was injured actions, district court correctly granted favor. Although claims used improper financial incentives its bid, argue district those financial incentives were improper they lose Therefore, we do consider this argument. Main Because disposition, we do address Alpine’s arguments related means element denial rule 56(f) motion. Even if 56(f) could establish means retaining expert who would testify recruiting another
(continued...)
CONCLUSION
¶12 We affirm judgment IHC. failed raise fact, based undisputed facts, was entitled as matter law to demonstrate relations injured interference. ____________________________________
Michele M. Christiansen, Judge
‐‐‐‐‐
¶13 WE CONCUR:
____________________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
____________________________________
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge
(...continued) violated professional standard, Williams Hunt, (stating one way means “show defendant’s means violated established standard a trade profession” (internal omitted)), properly because, as previously explained, matter law other elements intentional claims.