Pingree v. University of Utah et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
RITA FLORIAN PINGREE,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH and CAROLINE
MILNE,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ON FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON
PLAINTIFF’S PROMISSORY
ESTOPPEL CLAIM
Case No. 2:20-cv-00724-JNP-CMR
Chief District Judge Jill N. Parrish
On March 27, 2026, Plaintiff Dr. Rita Florian Pingree filed a motion for judgment on her
promissory estoppel claim. ECF No. 307. Defendants oppose the motion. ECF No. 313. Having
considered the trial testimony and the exhibits accepted into evidence, the court finds that Dr.
Pingree has not proven her promissory estoppel claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2012, Dr. Pingree graduated from the University of Utah’s medical school. After
medical school, she sought to enter a three-year (or “categorical”) residency program for internal
medicine. Complicating this process for Dr. Pingree was her then-ongoing divorce proceedings.
Due to disagreements over custody of her young daughter, Dr. Pingree was limited in where she
could relocate, and so she primarily applied to residency programs in or near Utah.
Dr. Pingree’s hunt for residency programs did not result in much success, however. For
example, she repeatedly tried to match into some of the University of Utah’s residency programs,
each time unsuccessfully. Relevant here, Dr. Pingree applied for a categorical residency position
in the University’s Internal Medicine Program for the 2017–2018 year. In February 2017,
Case 2:20-cv-00724-JNP Document 323 Filed 08/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 6

2
Defendant Dr. Milne, the Program Director of the Internal Medicine Program, met with Dr.
Pingree and informed her that she would not match into the program. However, Dr. Milne told Dr.
Pingree that she could be guaranteed a position in the “preliminary” residency program, which is
a one-year commitment for those who are planning on pursuing another residency program. In
other words, a placement in a preliminary residency program generally does not come with an
expectation of continuing on into the same three-year categorical residency program. However,
Dr. Milne stated to Dr. Pingree during that meeting that if Dr. Pingree did well in the preliminary
program, she could stay on in the program as a second-year categorical resident. Dr. Pingree then
matched into the preliminary program, in reliance on that promise.
Ultimately, Dr. Milne and the University of Utah did not offer Dr. Pingree a spot in the
categorical program. Dr. Pingree claims she suffered extensive economic and non-economic
damages from Defendants’ conduct.
Dr. Pingree then filed suit, alleging, inter alia, a promissory estoppel claim. ECF No. 1.
Some of Dr. Pingree’s claims—relating to alleged discrimination by Dr. Milne and the University
of Utah—went to trial, but the court ruled that Dr. Pingree’s promissory estoppel claim, as an
equitable claim, would be decided by the court after the jury reached its verdict on the legal claims.
ECF No. 266. In March 2026, after a two-week trial, a jury found Dr. Milne and the University of
Utah not liable for all legal claims brought against them. ECF No. 300. The court now considers
the promissory estoppel claim.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Utah law, “[t]o make out a case of promissory estoppel necessitates a showing that
(1) [t]he plaintiff acted with prudence and in reasonable reliance on a promise made by the
defendant; (2) the defendant knew that the plaintiff had relied on the promise which the defendant
should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the plaintiff or a third
Case 2:20-cv-00724-JNP Document 323 Filed 08/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 6

3
person; (3) the defendant was aware of all material facts; and (4) the plaintiff relied on the promise
and the reliance resulted in a loss to the plaintiff.” Youngblood v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 2007 UT
28, ¶ 16, 158 P.3d 1088.
When an equitable claim—like the instant promissory estoppel claim—is decided after a
jury has returned a verdict on related legal claims, “the jury’s findings on any common questions
of fact must be applied when the court decides the equitable claims.” Elm Ridge Expl. Co., LLC v.
Engle, 721 F.3d 1199, 1222 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Colo. Visionary Acad. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
397 F.3d 867, 875 (10th Cir. 2005)). In other words, when deciding equitable claims, a court will
be bound by the jury’s verdict, including by findings implicit in the verdict and with respect to any
common questions of fact. See Smith v. Diffee Ford-Lincoln- Mercury, Inc., 298 F.3d 955, 965–
66 (10th Cir. 2002).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Many aspects of this promissory estoppel claim are clear in the evidentiary record. The
record is clear that a certain promise was made. ECF No. 307 ¶ 1 (Dr. Milne stating “if you do
well next year, I guarantee you can stay in this program”). It is clear that Dr. Pingree relied on the
promise to some extent (though the extent and reasonableness of such reliance is contested). See
ECF No. 307 ¶¶ 3, 7–14; ECF No. 313 at 11. It is undoubtedly clear that Defendants wanted Dr.
Pingree to rely on that promise. ECF No. 307 ¶¶ 6–7. What is disputed, however, is if Dr. Pingree
satisfied the condition precedent to the promise, which would, in turn, affect whether Dr. Pingree
reasonably relied on the promise to her detriment. In other words, the parties disagree on whether
the evidence shows that Dr. Pingree did well in her preliminary intern year.
Defendants argue first that the jury’s verdict precludes Dr. Pingree from establishing her
promissory estoppel claim. In their view, Dr. Pingree advanced a singular theory at trial: that she
did well in her preliminary intern year and that the only reason for her non-advancement was
Case 2:20-cv-00724-JNP Document 323 Filed 08/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 6

4
unlawful discrimination. Defendants contend that in finding Defendants not liable, “the jury
necessarily resolved that Defendants’ proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not
advancing Plaintiff were not pretextual.” ECF No. 313 at 8. In response, Dr. Pingree notes that the
jury was not specifically asked to determine whether she did well.
The court does not agree that the jury’s verdict mandates an implicit finding that Dr.
Pingree did not satisfy the condition precedent to the promise by not doing well. To be sure, Dr.
Pingree’s performance as a preliminary intern was central to the legal issues at trial, given her
performance was Defendants’ “central justification” at trial for not moving her forward in the
program. ECF No. 313 at 9. Nevertheless, Dr. Pingree’s performance was not the only possible
non-discriminatory justification for Defendants’ actions, nor was the jury specifically instructed
that Dr. Pingree’s performance was Defendants’ central justification. See ECF No. 301 at 4 (jury
instructions stating only that “Defendants contend that all decisions at issue were . . . based on
legitimate and non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory considerations”). Without more clarity on
why the jury found Defendants not liable, the court cannot say that the jury definitively believed
Dr. Pingree to have not done well. That finding is not a “necessary implication” of the jury’s
verdict. Ag Services of America, Inc. v. Nielsen, 231 F.3d 726, 732 (10th Cir. 2000) (noting that
“[t]he true test is whether the jury verdict by necessary implication reflects the resolution of a
common factual issue”). The court is thus not precluded from deciding the promissory estoppel
claim in favor of Dr. Pingree; there would be no inherent conflict with any implicit jury finding.
But even though the court finds that the jury’s verdict does not necessarily imply that Dr.
Pingree did not meet the condition precedent to the promise, the court finds that the evidentiary
record supports such a finding of fact, based on a preponderance of evidence. While Dr. Pingree
points to some testimony and exhibits that show scattered positive feedback for her work, the
Case 2:20-cv-00724-JNP Document 323 Filed 08/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 6

5
evidentiary record includes, in the court’s view, a significantly greater weight of evidence that
showcases that Dr. Pingree had serious performance issues. See, e.g., ECF No. 308-18 at 8 (Dr.
Raaum marking “Deficiencies noted, recommend remediation”). While the court does not doubt
that Dr. Pingree is now a qualified doctor, the evidence presented at trial makes clear that in the
relevant year, she did not “do well.”
In addition, Dr. Pingree’s attempt to re-define what “doing well” means both does violence
to the phrase and creates another problem for herself. As Defendants argue, “[if] Plaintiff must
redefine the condition to encompass performance that includes remediation, extended timelines,
or discretionary accommodations, then the purported promise” may not be definite enough to
support the claim. ECF No. 313 at 15; see S6, LLC v. Wing Enters., Inc., 2024 UT App 105, ¶ 70,
56 P.3d 100, 117 (finding a promise of equity not sufficiently clear and definite to be actionable
on a theory of promissory estoppel).
Because she did not satisfy the condition precedent to the promise, Dr. Pingree cannot show
that she reasonably relied on the promise to her detriment, and Defendants were under no
obligation to fulfill the promise. See Arata v. Shefco, Ltd., 2014 UT App 148, ¶ 8, 330 P.3d 115,
117 (describing conditions precedent). Any request for damages or equitable relief stemming from
this claim is therefore unwarranted.0F
1
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
In sum, the court concludes that Dr. Pingree has failed to prove her promissory estoppel
claim. Accordingly, the court finds in favor of Defendants on the claim.
1 Because the court rejects the promissory estoppel claim, the court need not rule on whether the
promissory estoppel claim can be brought against both defendants or only against the University
of Utah. See ECF No. 320 at 13.
Case 2:20-cv-00724-JNP Document 323 Filed 08/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 5
of 6

6
DATED August 17, 2026.
BY THE COURT
______________________________
Jill N. Parrish
United States Chief District Judge
Case 2:20-cv-00724-JNP Document 323 Filed 08/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 6
of 6