Gonda v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc et al
Filing
19
ORDER STAYING CASE. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 9/9/2011. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2011)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
THOMAS A. GONDA, JR.,
Plaintiff,
8
10
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
9
v.
11
THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, et
al.,
12
Defendants.
) Case No. 11-01363 SC
)
) ORDER STAYING CASE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
13
14
Thomas A. Gonda, Jr. ("Plaintiff") brings this action for
15
equitable relief and benefits under the Employee Retirement Income
16
Security Act ("ERISA").
17
alleges that The Permanente Medical Group, et al. ("Defendants")
18
breached their obligations under ERISA and an employee welfare
19
benefit plan by failing to conduct a proper review prior to
20
terminating Plaintiffs' benefits under the plan.
21
Plaintiff has also initiated an arbitration proceeding against
22
Defendants regarding Defendants' decision that Plaintiff is
23
precluded from returning to employment as a cardiothoracic surgeon.
24
ECF No. 15 ("JCMS") at 8.
25
the Court stay this action pending further developments in the
26
arbitration proceeding.
27
objection to this request.
28
ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") ¶ 1.
Plaintiff
Id. ¶ 10.
On August 8, 2011, Plaintiff asked that
ECF No. 18.
Defendants have not filed an
In the interest of judicial economy,
1
th Court STAYS th
he
his actio
on.
With
hin ten (
(10) days of fina
s
al
2
resolution of the pending arbitrat
n
tion proc
ceeding, Plaintif shall
ff
3
no
otify the Court o the ou
e
of
utcome an file a request for the Court t
nd
t
e
to
4
lift its stay.
s
5
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDE
S
ERED.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Dated Septem
d:
mber 9, 2
2011
UNITED ST
U
TATES DIS
STRICT JU
UDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?