Bastidas v. Good Samaritan Hospital LP et al

Filing 153

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/16/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

J. AUGUSTO BASTIDAS,

Case No. 13-cv-04388-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE

9
GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL LP, et
al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 145

12
13

The Court recently granted in part a motion to dismiss filed by defendants Good Samaritan

14

Hospital, L.P., Samaritan, LLC, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Staff, Steven M. Schwartz

15

M.D., and Bruce G. Wilbur M.D. (collectively, “defendants”).

16

requested that this Court take judicial notice of two documents in support of their motion to

17

dismiss: (1) a true and correct copy of the Judicial Review Committee Decision and Report in the

18

Matter of J. Augusto Bastidas, M.D., dated September 11, 2012 (“JRC Decision”), and (2) a true

19

and correct copy of the Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Staff Bylaws, dated January 2011

20

(“Medical Staff Bylaws”). Dkt. No. 145.

Dkt. No. 152.

Defendants

21

The JRC Decision was originally filed by plaintiff under seal in this action at Docket No.

22

121-14. The opposition motion accompanying this document was rendered moot, however,

23

following this Court’s denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 139. The

24

current request by defendants maintains the confidentiality of the JRC Decision, and plaintiff has

25

not opposed the Court’s taking judicial notice of either document. Dkt. No. 145.

26

The Court finds that plaintiff has incorporated both documents by reference in his Fourth

27

Amended Complaint (“4AC”), and the contents of the documents are not subject to reasonable

28

dispute.

Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We have extended the

1

‘incorporation by reference’ doctrine to situations in which the plaintiff’s claim depends on the

2

contents of a document, the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss, and the

3

parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document, even though the plaintiff does not

4

explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint.”). This request is accordingly

5

GRANTED.

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2