Lopez v. Contra Costa Regional Medical Center et al

Filing 40

ORDER SETTING NEW BRIEFING SCHEDULE: Re 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by County of Contra Costa, Contra Costa Regional Medical Center. Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing set for 2/20/2014 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 11/18/2013. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

JESUS LOPEZ, for himself and as the Guardian
ad Litem for EDGAR LOPEZ, ALEXANDRA
LOPEZ, and GRETSANDY LOPEZ, his minor
children,

13

No. C 12-03726 LB
ORDER SETTING NEW BRIEFING
SCHEDULE

Plaintiff,
14
15

v.

[ECF No. 33]

CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER and COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA,

16
17
18

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
This case involves Plaintiff Jesus Lopez’s claims against the Contra Costa Regional Medical

19

Center (“CCRMC”) for violating the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

20

(“EMTALA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, and state malpractice law after Mr. Lopez’s wife (and his minor

21

children’s mother) died from complications after she gave birth. ECF No. 21.1 CCRMC moved for

22

summary judgment. Discovery has not closed, and in his opposition, Mr. Lopez points out that he

23

did not have responses to his interrogatories regarding issues raised by his arguments about good-

24

faith admission under EMTALA. Opposition, ECF No. 34 at 9. CCRMC responds that discovery

25

responses would not alter the outcome. Reply, ECF No. 36 at 65.

26
27
1

28

Citations generally are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the
electronically-generated page numbers at the top of the document.

ORDER (C 12-03726 LB)

1

As the court said in its order denying CCRMC’s motion to dismiss, it understands CCRMC’s

2

legal argument that liability ended when Mrs. Lopez was admitted to labor and delivery on the night

3

of September 29, 2011. The court also recognized the tension between 42 C.F.R. § 489.24(a)(1)(i)’s

4

absolute cut-off of EMTALA liability at admission and 42 C.F.R. § 489.24(d)(2)(i)’s cut-off of

5

EMTALA liability for a good-faith admission to stabilize. Given section 489.24(a)(1)(i)’s explicit

6

cross-reference to section 489.24(d)(2)(i), the court did not resolve the issue at the pleadings stage,

7

instead electing to wait until summary judgment. The idea was to decide the issue in the context of

8

the facts. See Order, ECF No. 26 at 10-11 & n.11. The court also noted issues of fact appropriate

9

for summary judgment: (1) whether the delivery department was an emergency department; (2)

Lopez had an emergency medical condition that CCRMC detected; and (4) whether the hospital

12
For the Northern District of California

whether Mrs. Lopez was a patient before she was admitted to a post-partum floor; (3) whether Mrs.

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

admitted Mrs. Lopez, knowing that did not have the ability to stabilize her (and thus that the

13

admission was not made in good faith to stabilize her under the EMTALA). Id. at 10-11.

14

Some of these facts have been illuminated by the medical records. Mr. Lopez nonetheless

15

maintains that he did not have sufficient discovery to address the issue of good faith. The court

16

understands that CCRMC’s position is that it does not matter in the context of what these records

17

show. Nonetheless, given that fact discovery has not closed, and to ensure a clean record, the court

18

will not hear a summary judgment motion until after fact discovery has closed. Given that outcome,

19

the court vacates the November 21 summary judgment hearing, reiterates the previously-set

20

discovery cut-offs (set based on the parties’ input), and sets the following schedule, which includes

21

dates for new opposition and reply briefs.

22

Case Event

Date

23

Fact Discovery Completion Date and Expert
Disclosures

1/16/2014

Rebuttal Expert disclosures

1/31/2014

Plaintiff’s Opposition Brief

1/31/2014

Defendants’ Optional Reply

2/7/2014

Hearing on Summary Judgment Motion

2/20/2014, 9:30 a.m.

24
25
26
27
28

ORDER (C 12-03726 LB)

2

1

All other deadlines will remain in effect.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

Dated: November 18, 2013

4

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER (C 12-03726 LB)

3