Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Arkansas Methodist Hospital Corp. v. Forbes

November 3, 2005

ARKANSAS METHODIST HOSPITAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ ARKANSAS METHODIST MEDICAL CENTER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CRAIG W. FORBES, M.D., DEFENDANT.
ARKANSAS METHODIST HOSPITAL CORPORATION D/B/A/ ARKANSAS METHODIST MEDICAL CENTER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
EUGENE M. FINAN, M.D., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge

ORDER

Before the Court are plaintiffs' motions in limine to which defendants have responded. Upon careful review, the motions are denied.

Plaintiffs note that in the Memorandum Opinion and Order denying plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, the Court found that defendants' counterclaims for fraudulent inducement were based principally on two alleged representations by Ron Rooney: (1) that Dr. Smith would be leaving and (2) that the percentage of Medicaid OB/GYN patients was traditionally very low but had been increasing due to Smith's problems and reputation. Plaintiffs now ask the Court to determine what alleged representations should be the subject of this lawsuit in order to assist them in properly preparing for trial and drafting jury instructions. Specifically, they ask the Court not to allow defendants "to 'remember' other fraudulent statements during trial and not make up or present new allegations 'on the fly' as the trial progresses." Pl's. Brs. in Supp. Mot. in Limine at 4. In addition, plaintiffs move the Court to order defendants to replead their counterclaims to"accurately reflect the Court's Memorandum and Order." Id. at 7.

In ruling on the motions for summary judgment, the Court addressed other alleged misrepresentations that form the basis of defendants' affirmative defense and counterclaim. Plaintiffs are aware of that testimony and familiar with the documentary evidence upon which defendants intend to argue their case. The Court does not intend to restrict the evidence to the two principle misrepresentations; the evidence is interrelated. Nor will the Court order defendants to replead their counterclaims.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs' motions in limine*fn1 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.