Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group et al

Filing 118

ORDER REQUIRING BRIEFING ON JURY ISSUE AND VACATING EVIDENTIARY HEARING PENDING RULING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 1/27/16. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2016)

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