Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group et al

Filing 118


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DONALD GOLDEN, Plaintiff, 8 9 v. 10 CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, et al., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 10-cv-00437-JSW Defendants. ORDER REQUIRING BRIEFING ON JURY ISSUE AND VACATING EVIDENTIARY HEARING PENDING RULING Re: Docket No. 117 12 13 On April 8, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed this 14 Court’s Order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and 15 Defendants. Golden v. California Emergency Physician’s Medical Group, 782 F.3d 1083 (9th 16 Cir. 2015). In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit stated that “[o]n remand, the district court should 17 determine in the first instance whether the no-employment provision,” in the settlement agreement 18 “constitutes a restraint of a substantial character” to Plaintiff’s medical practice. Id. at 1093. 19 After the Ninth Circuit issued the mandate, the Court set a status conference, and the 20 parties submitted a status report, in which they requested that the Court conduct an evidentiary 21 hearing on the issue of whether the no-employment provision constituted a restraint of a 22 substantial character on Plaintiff’s medical practice. The Court granted the parties request, 23 scheduled an evidentiary hearing for February 8, 2015, and ordered the parties to submit a status 24 report regarding the number of witnesses and estimated length of testimony. (See Docket Nos. 25 105-112.) 26 The Court has received the parties’ status report. (Docket No. 117.) In that report, they 27 advise the Court that there is a dispute about whether a jury is “allowed” for the evidentiary 28 hearing. The Court shall permit simultaneous briefing on this issue. The Court also requests that 1 the parties brie the followi question e ef ing n: 2 If the Court conclud that a jur is not requ C des ry quired or allo owed, can the “restraint o a of 3 sub bstantial cha aracter” issue be resolved without a l e d live evidentiary hearing, such as on a motion for r 4 sum mmary adjud dication, wit the submis th ssion of decl larations, de eposition test timony, or o other 5 evi idence? The par rties shall su ubmit openin briefs, not to exceed t (10) page setting fo their ng t ten es, orth 6 7 res spective posi itions by no later than Fe ebruary 3, 20 016. 8 The par rties shall fil responses to the openi briefs on February 10, 2016. le ing n 9 There shall be no re s eplies. The Co shall res the hearin if necess ourt set ng, sary, once it has issued it ruling on t parties’ ts the 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 briefs. IT IS SO ORDER S RED. Da ated: January 27, 2016 y 14 15 JE EFFREY S. W WHITE Un nited States D District Judg ge 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?