Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group et al

Filing 125

ORDER REGARDING EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND DEMAND FOR JURY. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 2/16/16. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DONALD GOLDEN,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER REGARDING EVIDENTIARY
HEARING AND DEMAND FOR JURY

v.

9
10

CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY
PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 10-cv-00437-JSW

Defendants.

12
Now before the Court for consideration are the parties’ simultaneous briefs on whether a

13
14

jury is required and the manner in which the Court should resolve the dispute over whether the no-

15

employment provision,” in the settlement agreement “constitutes a restraint of a substantial

16

character” to Plaintiff’s medical practice. See Golden v. California Emergency Physician’s

17

Medical Group, 782 F.3d 1083, 1093 (9th Cir. 2015) (reversing order granting motion to enforce

18

settlement agreement and remanding, directing that court may “order additional briefing or to

19

conduct further-fact finding as it deems prudent”). The Court has received and considered the

20

parties’ supplemental briefs, and it sets forth its rulings in the remainder of this Order.

21

A.

22

The Court Denies the Request for a Jury to Resolve the Motion.
The Court concludes a jury is not required to resolve the issue of whether the no-

23

employment provision,” in the settlement agreement “constitutes a restraint of a substantial

24

character” to Plaintiff’s medical practice. The Court begins with the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in

25

this matter, which remanded the case to this Court for additional briefing or fact finding. 782 F.3d

26

at 1093.

27

It also is well established in the Ninth Circuit that a motion to enforce a settlement

28

agreement “essentially is an action to specifically enforce a contract.” Adams v. Johns-Manville

1

Corp., 876 F.2d 702, 709 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, “a district court has the equitable power to

2

summarily enforce an agreement to settle a case pending before it.” Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888,

3

890 (9th Cir. 1987).
In support of his argument that a jury trial is required, Plaintiff states that he has demanded

4
5

a jury trial since the inception of the case. The Court does not find that fact dispositive. Plaintiff

6

also relies on Millner v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 643 F.2d 1005 (4th Cir. 1981). In

7

Millner, the defendant raised a prior settlement agreement as an affirmative defense to the

8

plaintiff’s claims under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (“FELA”). The trial court conducted

9

an evidentiary hearing, and it resolved the matter following that hearing. The Fourth Circuit
reversed and held that, because the plaintiff had demanded a jury trial, the demand encompassed

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

all issues, including enforcement of the settlement agreement. Id. at 1010. This case is in a

12

different procedural posture that Millner, because Defendants did not assert a prior settlement as

13

an affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s underlying claims. The Court therefore finds Millner

14

inapposite. Cf. Brown v. San Diego State University Foundation, No. 3:13-cv-2294-GPC-NLS,

15

2015 WL 454857, at *2-*3 (S.D. Cal. July 28, 2015) (denying motion for bench trial, where

16

defendant’s asserted settlement agreement as an affirmative defense to plaintiff’s claims and that

17

settlement did not involve case pending before the court at time it was reached); see also Adams,

18

876 F.2d at 710 n.6 (distinguishing Millner on the basis that FELA provides for “an expansive

19

right to a jury trial”).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a jury to resolve the issue of

20
21

whether the settlement agreement can be enforced.

22

B.

The Procedures to Be Followed.

23

The Court asked the parties to brief the issue of whether the Court could resolve this matter

24

on papers and without an evidentiary hearing. If “material facts concerning the existence or terms

25

of an agreement to settle are in dispute, the parties must be allowed an evidentiary hearing.”

26

Adams, 876 F.2d at 708; Callie, 829 F.2d at 890. At this stage, the Court cannot determine if there

27

are material facts in dispute about whether the no-employment provision constitutes a restraint of a

28

substantial character to Plaintiff’s medical practice. Therefore, the Court will schedule a
2

1

pla
aceholder dat for an evidentiary hea
te
aring on Mon
nday, April 2 2016 at 8
25,
8:00 a.m. \
The Co also ORD
ourt
DERS the pa
arties to subm supplem
mit
mental briefs on this limit issue, as
ted

3

we as the evid
ell
dence they expect to present at an ev
e
videntiary he
earing. The Court also o
orders that, if

4

the Court concludes an evidentiary hea
e
aring is requi
ired, the part shall pre
rties
esent direct t
testimony by
y

5

wa of declarations. There
ay
efore, the parties shall su
ubmit those d
declarations with the bri and
iefs

6

evi
idence requir by this Order. If, aft reviewing those mate
red
O
fter
g
erials, the Co determi
ourt
ines there are
e

7

no material fac in dispute it will vaca the evide
cts
e,
ate
entiary heari
ing. If, howe
ever, the Court

8

ncludes an ev
videntiary hearing is req
h
quired, the C
Court will hear live testim
mony for cro
osscon

9

exa
amination an re-direct. See, e.g., Adair v. Sunw Bank, 965 F.2d 777, 779 (9th C 1992);
nd
west
Cir.

10

Ca
alcor Space Facility, Inc. v. McDonn Douglas Corp., 5 Fed. Appx. 787, 789 (9th C 2001);
F
.
nell
Cir.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

Fed R. Civ. P. 43(a); Fed. R. Evid. 611.
d.

12

Because Defendant are the mo
ts
oving parties they shall submit their opening bri and
s,
r
iefs

13

evi
idence by March 8, 2016 Plaintiff shall file his opposition b
M
6.
s
brief and opp
posing evide
ence by

14

Ma
arch 22, 2016. Defendan may file their reply b
nts
brief by March 29, 2016. Absent ext
.
traordinary

15

cau the Cour shall not permit Defen
use,
rt
p
ndants to sub
bmit addition evidence on reply. T parties
nal
e
The

16

sha follow the local rules and shall in
all
e
nclude any ev
videntiary ob
bjections to the opposing party’s
g

17

evi
idence in the briefs. Defendants’ opening brief and Plainti
eir
o
f
iff’s oppositi shall not exceed
ion
t

18

twe
enty (20) pag and Def
ges,
fendant’s rep shall not exceed 12 p
ply
t
pages.

19

When the Court has received th reply brie fs, it shall re
t
s
he
eview the pa
arties’ materi and will
ials

20

adv the parti as to whe
vise
ies
ether it will hold the evid
h
dentiary hea
aring or whet
ther it will re
esolve the

21

ma
atters based on the papers.
o

22
23

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Februar 16, 2016
ry

24
25
JE
EFFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

26
27
28
3