Preview
m
“\
.__.
OOOOVO‘thAUJN
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
DIANA P. BLUM, M.D., Case No. 115-CV-277582
Plaintiff, TENTATIVE DECISION ON BIFURCATED
vs. CLAIM FOR COURT DETERMINATION AND
SUTTER HEALTH, a California corporation; PALO PROPOSED JUDGMENT
ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a
California Corporation; PALO ALTO MEDICAL
FOUNDATION, a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through
NNNNNNNNN——:—-.———.__._—
20,
“\IQMAWN—‘OOOONONMADJNb—I
Defendants.
This matter was heard in Department 16 commencing January 8, 2018 and concluding
February 13, 2018. Plaintiff,Diana P. Blum, M.D., appeared personally and with her attorney,
Theresa J. Barta, Barta Law. Defendants, Sutter Health and Palo Alto Medical Foundation,
appeared through its representative, Anthony Pacheco, and with their attorneys, Lindbergh
Porter and Maiko Nakarani, LittleMendelson, P.C., until dismissed'pursuant to Order granting
motion for nonsuit. Defendant, Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group, |nc., appeared through its
representative, David Gershfield, M.D., and with itsattorneys, Marcie lsom Fitzsimmons and
Hieu T. Williams, Gordon Rees Scully Mansuhani, L.L.P.
Following special verdict of the jury and discharge of the jury, the matter proceeded for
supplemental argument of counsel to the Court, if any, on the remaining claim of Plaintiff
bifurcated for Court determination. The remaining claim is the fourth cause of action for
\OOOVQUIAbJNw
unlawful and/or unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions
code section 17200.1 Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant waived supplemental argument, and
the fourth cause of action was submitted for Court decision.
After consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, argument of counsel arid
application of law, THE COURT ISSUES THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE DECISION AND PROPOSED
JUDGMENT:
Pursuant to rulings on Defendant’s motion for nonsuit and motions in iimine, Plaintiff’s
allegation that Defendant ”threatened to destroy Dr. Blum’s career ahd told her that ifshe did
not resign, orif she sued or went to the media, she would never work in the Bay area again”
constitutes the remaining claim of violation by Defendant of Business and Professions Code
section 17200. The Court will determine whether or not the allegations are proved by
preponderance of the
NNNNNNNNNh—_-.__._._.._.._._._.
evidence and ifso, whether such threats/statements constitute unfair
competition, unlawful and/or unfair or fraudulent business act or practice or other prohibited
act in violation of Business and Professions code section 17200.
The Court
ooxloxmaww~oxoooqoxmhww~o
finds that Plaintiff failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that
Defendant threatened to destroy or harm Plaintiff’s career, directly or indirectly, and/or told
Plaintiff that ifshe did not resign, or ifshe filed a lawsuit or pursued other legal action against
Defendant, or went to the media, that she would never work in the Bay Area again. Plaintiff has
therefore failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that Defendant engaged in unfair
1
amended
Plaintiff's first complaint.
2
Paragraph 89(h) of the first amended complaint.
\.
competition, unlawful and/or unfair or fraudulent business act or practice or other prohibited
act in violation of Business and Professions code section 17200.
I
The jury’s special verdict also contains findings consistent with this determination,
including: (a)as to section 10.2.2 of the Shareholder Employment Agreement, allthe conditions
that were required for Defendant‘s performance did not occur;3 (b) that Plaintiff had an
economic
OOOOVQUIADJN
relationship with patients she treated at PAMF during her employment with
Defendant that probably’would have resulted in an economic benefit to Plaintiff;“ (c) that
Defendant did not engage in deceitful conducts and (4) that Defendant did not intend to
disrupt the economic relationship or know that disruption of the relationship was certain or
substantially certain to occur.5
Accordingly, the Court's tentative decision as to the fourth cause of action isas follows:
1. Plaintiff has not met her burden of proof that Defendant engaged in unfair competition,
including any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice or other prohibited
act in violation of Business and Professions code section 17200; and
2. Judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s
fourth cause of action for unlawful and/or unfair business practices in violation of
California Business and Professions code section 17200.
NNNNNNNNNh—H—Ar—nw—a—AH—y—‘H
OONO‘MAMNHOOOONQUIAL'JNh—I
Dated: Februaryll, 2018
. Dfew C. Takaichi
J d ofthe Superior Court
3
Question 4 of the special verdict form relating to mandatory actions/procedures of Defendant ifthe agreement
employmen t) was terminated without cause by Defendant.
(Plaintiff’s
‘
Question 7 of the special verdict form.
5
Question 8 of the special verdict form.
6
Question 9 ofthe special verdict form.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE
NORTH FmerTREEr
191
SANJosE,CAm-‘0RN1A
CIVIL DIVISION
95113 g L E m
RE: D. Blum vs Sutter Health, et al
Case Number: 2015-1-CV-277582
PROOF OF SERVICE
TENTATIVE DECISION ON BIFURCATED CLAIM FOR COURT DETERMINATION AND PROPOSED
JUDGMENT was delivered to the parties listed below the above entitled case as set forth in the sworn
declaration below.
you.
If apany represented by you, on behalf of that
or a witness to be called pany need an accommodation under the Amen'can with
Disabilities please
Act. contad the Court Admlnlstrators
office at (408)8822700. or use the Court'sTDD line(408)882-2690 or the
VoioelTDD Califomia Relay Service (800) 735-2922.
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL: |declare that
|sewed by enclosing a true copy
this notice ina sealed envelope. addressed to
each person whose name isshown below, and bydepositing the envelope with postage
fully San Jose,
prepaid, in the United States Mail at
CA on Febmary 22, 2018. CLERK OF THE COURT, by Donna O'Hara. Deputy.
cc: Theresa J Berta 5160 Campus Dr Newport Beach CA 92660 -
Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons Gordon & Rees 275 Battery St #2000 San Francisco CA 941 11
cw-9027 REV 12/08/16 PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
m “\ .__. OOOOVO‘thAUJN SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DIANA P. BLUM, M.D., Case No. 115-CV-277582 Plaintiff, TENTATIVE DECISION ON BIFURCATED vs. CLAIM FOR COURT DETERMINATION AND SUTTER HEALTH, a California corporation; PALO PROPOSED JUDGMENT ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California Corporation; PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through NNNNNNNNN——:—-.———.__._— 20, “\IQMAWN—‘OOOONONMADJNb—I Defendants. This matter was heard in Department 16 commencing January 8, 2018 and concluding February 13, 2018. Plaintiff,Diana P. Blum, M.D., appeared personally and with her attorney, Theresa J. Barta, Barta Law. Defendants, Sutter Health and Palo Alto Medical Foundation, appeared through its representative, Anthony Pacheco, and with their attorneys, Lindbergh Porter and Maiko Nakarani, LittleMendelson, P.C., until dismissed'pursuant to Order granting motion for nonsuit. Defendant, Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group, |nc., appeared through its representative, David Gershfield, M.D., and with itsattorneys, Marcie lsom Fitzsimmons and Hieu T. Williams, Gordon Rees Scully Mansuhani, L.L.P. Following special verdict of the jury and discharge of the jury, the matter proceeded for supplemental argument of counsel to the Court, if any, on the remaining claim of Plaintiff bifurcated for Court determination. The remaining claim is the fourth cause of action for \OOOVQUIAbJNw unlawful and/or unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions code section 17200.1 Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant waived supplemental argument, and the fourth cause of action was submitted for Court decision. After consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, argument of counsel arid application of law, THE COURT ISSUES THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE DECISION AND PROPOSED JUDGMENT: Pursuant to rulings on Defendant’s motion for nonsuit and motions in iimine, Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant ”threatened to destroy Dr. Blum’s career ahd told her that ifshe did not resign, orif she sued or went to the media, she would never work in the Bay area again” constitutes the remaining claim of violation by Defendant of Business and Professions Code section 17200. The Court will determine whether or not the allegations are proved by preponderance of the NNNNNNNNNh—_-.__._._.._.._._._. evidence and ifso, whether such threats/statements constitute unfair competition, unlawful and/or unfair or fraudulent business act or practice or other prohibited act in violation of Business and Professions code section 17200. The Court ooxloxmaww~oxoooqoxmhww~o finds that Plaintiff failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that Defendant threatened to destroy or harm Plaintiff’s career, directly or indirectly, and/or told Plaintiff that ifshe did not resign, or ifshe filed a lawsuit or pursued other legal action against Defendant, or went to the media, that she would never work in the Bay Area again. Plaintiff has therefore failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that Defendant engaged in unfair 1 amended Plaintiff's first complaint. 2 Paragraph 89(h) of the first amended complaint. \. competition, unlawful and/or unfair or fraudulent business act or practice or other prohibited act in violation of Business and Professions code section 17200. I The jury’s special verdict also contains findings consistent with this determination, including: (a)as to section 10.2.2 of the Shareholder Employment Agreement, allthe conditions that were required for Defendant‘s performance did not occur;3 (b) that Plaintiff had an economic OOOOVQUIADJN relationship with patients she treated at PAMF during her employment with Defendant that probably’would have resulted in an economic benefit to Plaintiff;“ (c) that Defendant did not engage in deceitful conducts and (4) that Defendant did not intend to disrupt the economic relationship or know that disruption of the relationship was certain or substantially certain to occur.5 Accordingly, the Court's tentative decision as to the fourth cause of action isas follows: 1. Plaintiff has not met her burden of proof that Defendant engaged in unfair competition, including any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice or other prohibited act in violation of Business and Professions code section 17200; and 2. Judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for unlawful and/or unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions code section 17200. NNNNNNNNNh—H—Ar—nw—a—AH—y—‘H OONO‘MAMNHOOOONQUIAL'JNh—I Dated: Februaryll, 2018 . Dfew C. Takaichi J d ofthe Superior Court 3 Question 4 of the special verdict form relating to mandatory actions/procedures of Defendant ifthe agreement employmen t) was terminated without cause by Defendant. (Plaintiff’s ‘ Question 7 of the special verdict form. 5 Question 8 of the special verdict form. 6 Question 9 ofthe special verdict form. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE NORTH FmerTREEr 191 SANJosE,CAm-‘0RN1A CIVIL DIVISION 95113 g L E m RE: D. Blum vs Sutter Health, et al Case Number: 2015-1-CV-277582 PROOF OF SERVICE TENTATIVE DECISION ON BIFURCATED CLAIM FOR COURT DETERMINATION AND PROPOSED JUDGMENT was delivered to the parties listed below the above entitled case as set forth in the sworn declaration below. you. If apany represented by you, on behalf of that or a witness to be called pany need an accommodation under the Amen'can with Disabilities please Act. contad the Court Admlnlstrators office at (408)8822700. or use the Court'sTDD line(408)882-2690 or the VoioelTDD Califomia Relay Service (800) 735-2922. DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL: |declare that |sewed by enclosing a true copy this notice ina sealed envelope. addressed to each person whose name isshown below, and bydepositing the envelope with postage fully San Jose, prepaid, in the United States Mail at CA on Febmary 22, 2018. CLERK OF THE COURT, by Donna O'Hara. Deputy. cc: Theresa J Berta 5160 Campus Dr Newport Beach CA 92660 - Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons Gordon & Rees 275 Battery St #2000 San Francisco CA 941 11 cw-9027 REV 12/08/16 PROOF OF SERVICE