Coffman v. Queen of the Valley Medical Center

Filing 37

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 34 Administrative Motion for Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2017)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 JILL H. COFFMAN, Petitioner, 5 vs. 6 CASE NO. 17-cv-05575-YGR ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 34 7 QUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, Respondent. 8 9 The Court has reviewed the Administrative Motion of Respondent Queen of the Valley Medical Center (“QVMC”) for Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal (Dkt. No. 34), seeking a stay 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 pursuant to Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Ninth Circuit Rule 27-3, and 12 the response thereto. Having carefully considered the arguments therein and the record in this 13 matter, the motion for stay is DENIED. The Court does not find that a stay is warranted. 14 QVMC’s argument that it was not permitted to present evidence relative to the irreparable 15 harm factor is not supported by the record. Petitioner submitted evidence of irreparable harm 16 regarding loss of union support and unilateral changes, in the moving papers. It is this evidence 17 upon which the Court relied in reaching its decision. In its response to the moving papers, QVMC 18 characterized the evidence as insubstantial and disingenuous, but did not offer its own evidence on 19 this factor. Although QVMC objected to the petitioner’s rebuttal evidence on this factor, which 20 objection the Court overruled, QVMC did not seek to present its own evidence at or before the 21 hearing.1 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 This terminates Docket No. 34. 24 Dated: December 5, 2017 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 1 The health care benefits issue, to which QVMC refers in footnote 4 of the instant motion, concerned an upcoming open enrollment period, evidence of which was not part of the filings in the case and not discussed in the briefing. (11/21/17 Transcript 36:15-37:2.)

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?