Richard Gitter v. Cardiac & Thoracic Surgical As
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD GITTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CARDIAC & THORACIC MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, LTD.; ROCKINGHAM
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00546-RLW)
July 8, 2009
July 21, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry I. Willett, III, David B. Lacy, CHRISTIAN & BARTON, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Victor L. Hayslip, Walker S. Stewart, BURR & FORMAN, LLP, Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellant. Charles M. Allen, GOODMAN, ALLEN & FILETTI, PLLC, Glen Allen, Virginia; Marshall H. Ross, WHARTON ALDHIZER & WEAVER, PLC, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Richard adopting the Gitter appeals judge's the report district and court's order to
grant Defendants' summary judgment motions on his claims for breach of contract; suppression; fraud, misrepresentation inducement and to deceit; enter a
contract; and conspiracy. district court's
On appeal, Gitter challenges only the of his breach of contract claim
We vacate the district court's order to the
extent that it determined that Gitter was barred by Virginia's "unclean hands" doctrine from asserting that Defendants were
equitably estopped from relying on a Statute of Frauds defense, but affirm the remainder of the district court's order. To establish a breach of contract claim under Virginia law, a plaintiff of must prove: "(1) to of a legally enforceable (2) and the (3) of
obligation defendant's injury or
defendant or the breach
plaintiff; obligation; by the
violation damage to
Filak v. George, 594 S.E.2d 610, 614 (Va. 2004) An obligation that is not to be performed not a "legally enforceable obligation,"
(citations omitted). within a year is
however, if it is not "in writing and signed by the party to be charged or his agent." Va. Code Ann. § 11-2(8) (2006).
Gitter's employment agreement was not to be performed within one 2
writing under Virginia's Statute of Frauds.
We conclude that
the district court correctly held that the parties' various email communications did not constitute a signed writing
sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. We nonetheless conclude that the district court erred when it applied Virginia's unclean hands doctrine to bar Gitter from claiming that Defendants were equitably estopped from
asserting the Statute of Frauds defense.
Before the unclean
hands doctrine will bar an equitable remedy under Virginia law, the alleged wrongdoing of the party seeking relief must have "encouraged, invited, aided, compounded, or fraudulently
induced" the other party's wrongful conduct. 594 S.E.2d 899, 908 (Va. 2004). the Defendants' by argument that
Perel v. Brannan,
The district court agreed with a credentialing false application information,
thereby tainting him with unclean hands.
But it is undisputed
that Gitter's credentialing application was neither relied upon nor even reviewed by Defendants during their negotiations with Gitter, or at any time prior to their decision Thus, have to forego
Gitter's even if
agreement. could not
invited, aided, compounded, or fraudulently induced" Defendants to forego consummating the employment agreement. 3 Accordingly,
we find that the district court erred when it determined that Gitter's allegedly incorrect responses on his credentialing
application permitted invocation of the unclean hands doctrine under Virginia law. The district court's order is thus vacated
to the extent that it applied the unclean hands doctrine to bar Gitter from asserting that Defendants were equitably estopped from relying on a Statute of Frauds defense. The estoppel, "[e]lements a necessary of fraud to establish equitable are a
representation, reliance, a change of position, and detriment." See T--- v. T---, 224 S.E.2d 148, 151-52 (Va. 1976). Our review
of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, which was summarily adopted in its entirety by the district court, reveals that the magistrate judge did not conclusively determine whether Gitter could establish the necessary elements of Virginia's
equitable estoppel doctrine based on his post-March 28, 2007 conduct (that is, 28, whether 2007 Gitter reasonably that the relied terms of on his
employment were agreed upon). Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order to the extent the court applied Virginia's unclean hands doctrine to bar Gitter from the from claiming the that Defendants of were equitably and
estopped remand to
Statute for 4 a
Statute of Frauds as a defense to Gitter's breach of contract claim. We We affirm the remainder of the district court's order. with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?