George Par v. Wolfe Clinic, P.C., No. 22-2286 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff (and IVYR PLLC, doing business as Par Retina) sued Wolfe Clinic, P.C. (and three of its owner-physicians). Plaintiff alleged that the Clinic monopolized or attempted to monopolize the vitreoretinal care market. On the merits, the district court initially dismissed the monopolization, fraudulent inducement, and recission claims while remanding the remaining state law claims. In an amended judgment, the district court denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint and affirmed the dismissal of the monopolization claims, but declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, dismissing all state law claims.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint. The information in the amended complaint was previously available to Plaintiff and should have been pleaded before the judgment was entered. Plaintiff was on notice of the deficiencies in his complaint when the Clinic filed its motion to dismiss. Despite this, Plaintiff inexcusably delayed filing the Rule 59(e) motion—waiting over five months after the motion to dismiss was filed and almost a month after the district court dismissed the complaint. The court ultimately held that Plaintiff failed to plead a plausible claim for monopolization or attempted monopolization because he did not allege a relevant geographic market.
Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Gruender and Shepherd Circuit Judges] Civil case - Sherman Act. Plaintiff, an ophthalmologist specializing in vitreoretinal surgery, alleged defendant attempted to monopolize the vitreoretinal care market. The district court dismissed his Sherman Act claim because he did not allege an antitrust injury or state a proper geographic market; the court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. Held: the complaint failed to state an actual adverse effect on competition and failed to plead a relevant market; as a result, the district court did not err in dismissing the Sherman Act claim; these defects in the complaint could not be cured by additional discovery; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's post-judgment motion to amend the complaint; the district court did not abuse its discretion by not exercising supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.