Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 08-2221
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)
Submitted:
July 8, 2009
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Richard
adopting
the
Gitter
magistrate
appeals
judges
the
district
report
and
courts
order
recommendation
to
of
contract;
fraudulent
fraud,
suppression;
courts
fraudulent
and
inducement
to
deceit;
enter
dismissal
against Defendants.
misrepresentation
of
his
breach
of
contract
claim
hands
doctrine
from
asserting
that
Defendants
were
plaintiff
obligation
of
defendant's
injury
or
must
[the]
obligation.
to
or
to
breach
the
(1)
of
plaintiff
legally
enforceable
[the]
plaintiff;
(2)
the
that
obligation;
and
(3)
caused
by
the
breach
of
(citations omitted).
within
defendant
violation
damage
prove:
year
is
legally
enforceable
obligation,
or
his
agent.
Va.
Code
Ann.
11-2(8)
(2006).
year
and,
accordingly,
the
agreement
was
required
to
be
in
We conclude that
the district court correctly held that the parties various email
communications
did
not
constitute
signed
writing
claiming
that
Defendants
were
equitably
estopped
from
invited,
aided,
compounded,
Defendants
submitted
by
argument
Gitter
or
fraudulently
Perel v. Brannan,
that
contained
credentialing
materially
false
application
information,
But it is undisputed
or
at
any
time
consummating
Gitters
application,
even
if
prior
employment
misleading,
to
their
decision
agreement.
could
not
Thus,
have
to
forego
Gitters
encouraged,
Accordingly,
allegedly
incorrect
responses
on
his
credentialing
[e]lements
absent
necessary
showing
of
to
fraud
establish
and
equitable
deception,
are
Our review
could
establish
the
necessary
elements
of
Virginias
(that
Defendants
is,
March
whether
28,
2007
Gitter
assurances
reasonably
that
the
relied
terms
of
on
his
bar
Gitter
estopped
remand
to
from
the
from
claiming
asserting
the
district
court
that
Defendants
Statute
for
4
of
were
Frauds
equitably
defense,
determination
of
and
whether
Defendants
should
be
equitably
estopped
from
asserting
the
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
legal
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED