Coffman v. Queen of the Valley Medical Center
ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 34 Administrative Motion for Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2017)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JILL H. COFFMAN,
CASE NO. 17-cv-05575-YGR
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF
INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 34
QUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER,
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
pursuant to Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Ninth Circuit Rule 27-3, and
the response thereto. Having carefully considered the arguments therein and the record in this
matter, the motion for stay is DENIED. The Court does not find that a stay is warranted.
QVMC’s argument that it was not permitted to present evidence relative to the irreparable
harm factor is not supported by the record. Petitioner submitted evidence of irreparable harm
regarding loss of union support and unilateral changes, in the moving papers. It is this evidence
upon which the Court relied in reaching its decision. In its response to the moving papers, QVMC
characterized the evidence as insubstantial and disingenuous, but did not offer its own evidence on
this factor. Although QVMC objected to the petitioner’s rebuttal evidence on this factor, which
objection the Court overruled, QVMC did not seek to present its own evidence at or before the
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This terminates Docket No. 34.
Dated: December 5, 2017
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
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?