Opinion ID: 1619964
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dahlgren v. Caring and Sharing, Inc.

Text: Dean R. Dahlgren, doing business as Advance Therapies, provided physical therapy services to elderly and handicapped clients of Caring and Sharing, Inc. (C & S) pursuant to a services agreement which provided that C & S could terminate the agreement for any reason by giving two weeks written notice to Dahlgren. C & S sent Dahlgren a notice of termination in August of 1987. On behalf of Dahlgren, respondent filed a complaint alleging numerous claims against C & S stemming from the termination of the contract but failed to attach a signed acknowledgement as required by Rule 11, Minn. R. Civ. P. The complaint was amended twice to include additional claims. In August of 1988 the trial court granted C & S's motion to dismiss the complaint filed by respondent because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On respondent's appeal, the court of appeals affirmed holding the provision that Dahlgren could be terminated for any reason could only be interpreted as allowing C & S to terminate him at will or without cause. [1] Respondent filed a complaint on March 15, 1989 against Nancy Wolff, a consultant who had reviewed the therapy services of C & S. Respondent alleged that through Wolff's report to C & S she had committed numerous offenses against Dahlgren including tortious interference, restraint of trade, unfair competition, deceit, fraud, interference with prospective economic advantage, gender discrimination, and defamation. Several weeks later, respondent filed a Corrected Complaint against C & S which alleged tortious interference, fraud and negligent hiring, defamation, restraint of trade, deceit, tortious interference, fraud and negligent hiring, defamation, restraint of trade, deceit, tortious interference by defamation, and tortious interference by fraudulent or deceitful acts. This second suit against C & S contained many of the same allegations and claims dismissed in the first suit. During the course of discovery, respondent's deposition of Wolff was terminated because respondent asked inappropriate questions regarding the financial arrangements between Wolff and her counsel. Respondent attempted further discovery by motion to compel Wolff to appear for a second deposition and to respond to discovery requests for information on financial arrangements with her counsel. The motion was denied, and respondent was sanctioned $1000 for his mudslinging and conjecture. [2] In October of 1989, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both Wolff and C & S. Each was awarded $1000 for attorney fees under Rule 11, Minn. R. Civ. P. [3] Respondent again appealed the order of summary judgment to the court of appeals, which affirmed awarding an additional $2000 to Wolff and C & S for attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal. [4]