Opening Brief for Appellant/Cross-Appellee - Appellate.net

e.g., JA323; JA324. But whether her motive was financial or altruistic, it is
undisputed Tomes did not act out of ill will toward CGB.
Nor did CGB present any evidence that Sunrise engaged in intentional
trickery or deceit. Marjorie Tomes met with the therapists openly, as a group, in a
room with a glass door. There is no allegation that she attempted to mislead them
in any way. To the contrary, Tomes told the therapists only what, after speaking
with RHA’s counsel, she believed she was permitted to tell them. She stuck to her
script – a fact that is confirmed by the essentially identical recitations from all of
the therapists as to what transpired at the five-minute meeting. See JA457-460.
Nor was there any effort to conceal the meeting after the fact. RHA’s Knaup
specifically told Brillman that Sunrise had “informed your employees, when it was
more than apparent that you had not, that your contract was cancelled effective
September 30, 1998.” JA481-482.
It is unclear what the district court meant when it made a passing reference
to “repeated stalling and dishonesty.” See JA12. As noted, punitive damages
cannot be imposed for Sunrise’s refusal to discuss the termination of the contract
with Brillman in the summer and fall of 1998. To the extent that the court was
referring to the discovery disputes that took place prior to “the eve of the first trial”
(id.), its reliance is likewise misplaced, for at least two reasons. First, even if those
disputes somehow prejudiced plaintiff in connection with the first trial, they
28