Preview
E-FILED
THERESA J. BARTA (State Bar No. 150995)
2/20/2018 1:09 PM
BARTA LAW
Clerk of Court
4041 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 280
Superior Court of CA,
Newport Beach, California 92660
County of Santa Clara
Tel. (949) 833-3383 2015-1-CV-277582
Fax (949) 209-2530
Reviewed By: L. Nguyen
Email: theresa@barta-law.com
Envelope:1234887
Attorney for Plaintiff,
Diana P. Blum, M.D.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10 DIANA P. BLUM, M.D., Case No. 115-CV-277582
11
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO
Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER
12 SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT PALO
VS. ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP
13
Trial Date: January 8, 2018
SUTTER HEALTH, a California corporation;
14 Time: 8:45 a.m.
PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL
GROUP, a California corporation; PALO
Dept.: 16
15 Judge: Hon. Drew C. Takaichi
ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION, a
California corporation; and DOES 1| through
16 20,
Defendants.
17
18
19
20 Plaintiff, Diana Blum, M.D., hereby submits the following objections to the Proposed
21 Judgment and Order filed and served by Defendant Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group, Inc.
22 (“PAFMG”) on February 15, 2018 (a copy of the Proposed Judgment and Order are attached
23 hereto as Exhibit A for the court’s convenience):
24
1
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1 Plaintiff objects to the entirety of the Proposed Judgment and Order on the grounds
that in a trial by jury, the judgment is prepared and entered by the court clerk [C.C.P. Section 664];
2 Plaintiff objects to page 2, lines 1 through 8 of the Proposed Judgment and Order
(which refer to the special verdict rendered by the jury) on the grounds that in a trial by jury, the
judgment is prepared and entered by the court clerk [C.C.P. Section 664];
3 Plaintiff objects to page 2, lines 9 through 11 of the Proposed Judgment and Order
which states: “After considering all relevant evidence offered by the parties, this Court further
finds that Plaintiff has not met her burden of proof to show that Defendant violated Business and
Professions Code section 17200, and hereby finds for the defendant” on the grounds that: 1) no
10 such finding has been made by the court, and 2) the court must issue its own findings of fact and
11 statement of tentative (and final) decision [C.C.P. Section 632 and Cal. Rules of Court 3.1590];
12 4 Plaintiff objects to page 2, line 13 of the Proposed Judgment and Order on the
13 grounds that the in a trial by jury, the judgment is prepared and entered by the court clerk [C.C.P.
14 Section 664]; and
15 5 Plaintiff objects to page 2, lines 14 and 15 of the Proposed Judgment and Order,
16 including, but not limited to, the reference to C.C.P. Section 998 on the grounds that it is not
17 applicable in this case.
18 Dated: February 20, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,
19
20 (ua Dette
Theresa J. Bai
21 Attorney for Plaintiff, Dr. Diana Blum
22
23
24
2
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Exhibit “A”
MARCIE ISOM FITZSIMMONS (SBN: 226906)
HIEU T. WILLIAMS (SBN: 280585)
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANT, LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 986-5900
Facsimile: (415) 986-8054
Misom@gordonrees.com
Hwilliams@gordonrees.com
Attorneys for Defendant
PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10
11 DIANA P. BLUM, M.D., CASE NO. 115CV277582
12 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED]
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
13 VS.
14 SUTTER HEALTH, a California corporation;
PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL
15 GROUP, INC., a California corporation;
PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION, a
16 California corporation; and DOES 1 through
20,
17 Trial Date: January 8, 2018
Defendants. ) Honorable Judge Drew C. Takaichi
18 Dept. 16
19
20 Trial in the above-referenced matter commenced on January 8, 2018 in Department 16 of
21 the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, the Honorable Drew C. Takaichi
22 presiding; the Plaintiff DIANA BLUM (“Plaintiff”) appearing by her attorney Theresa J. Barta
23 and the Defendant PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP, INC. (“Defendant”),
24 appearing by their attorneys Marcie I. Fitzsimmons and Hieu T. Williams. A jury of twelve
25 persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing
26 the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause
27 was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on special issues. The jury
28 deliberated and thereafter returned into Court with its verdict as follows:
-1-
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1 On Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract, specifically section 4.6 of the
Shareholder Employment Agreement, the jury found for Plaintiff.
2 On Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract, specifically section 10.2.2 of the
Shareholder Employment Agreement, the jury found for Defendant.
3 On Plaintiff’s claim for intentional interference with prospective business
advantage, the jury found for Defendant.
4 The jury awarded Plaintiff damages in the amount of $28,415.00 for breach of
contract, specifically section 4.6 of the Shareholder Employment Agreement.
After considering all relevant evidence offered by the parties, this Court further finds that
10
Plaintiff has not met her burden of proof to show that Defendant violated Business and
11
Professions Code section 17200, and hereby finds for the Defendant.
12
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
13
1 Plaintiff be awarded damages in the amount of $28,415.00 for breach of contract.
14
2 Costs shall be awarded in accordance with Civil Code section 1717, Code of Civil
15
Procedure sections 998, 1031 and 1032, and any other applicable statute.
16
17 Dated:
18
B
19 HON. DREW C. TAKAICHI
Superior Court Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2-
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
Iam employed in the county of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and a]
not a party to the within action; my business address is 5160 Campus Drive, Newport Beach.
California 92660.
On February 20, 2018, I served the foregoing document(s) described as PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER SUBMITTED BY
DEFENDANT PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP on all interested parties in
this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:
Attorneys for Sutter Health and Palo Alto | Attorneys for Palo Alto Foundation Medical
Medical Foundation: Group, Inc.:
Lindbergh Porter, Esq. Marcie Ison Fitzsimmons, Esq.
Maiko Nakarai-Kanivas, Esq. Gordon Rees LLP
Littler Mendelson, P.C. 275 Battery St., #2000
333 Bush Street, 34" Floor San Francisco, CA 94111
San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 986-5900
10 Tel: (415) 433-1940 Fax: (415) 986-8054
Fax: (415) 399-8490 Email: MIsom@gordonrees.com
11 Email: mnakaraikanivas@littler.com
12 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE)
— By personally delivering copies to the person served.
13 I caused to be delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee pursuant
toC.C.P. § 1011.
14 (BY MAIL) — I deposited such envelope in the mail at Newport Beach, California. The
envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s
1S practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be
deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Newport
16 Beach, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the part
served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is or than one
17 (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
X__ (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) — I transmitted a PDF version of this document
18 by electronic mail on February 20, 2018 to the party(s) identified on the attached service list using
the e-mail address(es) indicated.
19
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
J (ua
20 true and correct.
21 Desde
Theresa J. irta
22
23
24
3
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Preview
E-FILED THERESA J. BARTA (State Bar No. 150995) 2/20/2018 1:09 PM BARTA LAW Clerk of Court 4041 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 280 Superior Court of CA, Newport Beach, California 92660 County of Santa Clara Tel. (949) 833-3383 2015-1-CV-277582 Fax (949) 209-2530 Reviewed By: L. Nguyen Email: theresa@barta-law.com Envelope:1234887 Attorney for Plaintiff, Diana P. Blum, M.D. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 DIANA P. BLUM, M.D., Case No. 115-CV-277582 11 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER 12 SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT PALO VS. ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP 13 Trial Date: January 8, 2018 SUTTER HEALTH, a California corporation; 14 Time: 8:45 a.m. PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP, a California corporation; PALO Dept.: 16 15 Judge: Hon. Drew C. Takaichi ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION, a California corporation; and DOES 1| through 16 20, Defendants. 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff, Diana Blum, M.D., hereby submits the following objections to the Proposed 21 Judgment and Order filed and served by Defendant Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group, Inc. 22 (“PAFMG”) on February 15, 2018 (a copy of the Proposed Judgment and Order are attached 23 hereto as Exhibit A for the court’s convenience): 24 1 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER 1 Plaintiff objects to the entirety of the Proposed Judgment and Order on the grounds that in a trial by jury, the judgment is prepared and entered by the court clerk [C.C.P. Section 664]; 2 Plaintiff objects to page 2, lines 1 through 8 of the Proposed Judgment and Order (which refer to the special verdict rendered by the jury) on the grounds that in a trial by jury, the judgment is prepared and entered by the court clerk [C.C.P. Section 664]; 3 Plaintiff objects to page 2, lines 9 through 11 of the Proposed Judgment and Order which states: “After considering all relevant evidence offered by the parties, this Court further finds that Plaintiff has not met her burden of proof to show that Defendant violated Business and Professions Code section 17200, and hereby finds for the defendant” on the grounds that: 1) no 10 such finding has been made by the court, and 2) the court must issue its own findings of fact and 11 statement of tentative (and final) decision [C.C.P. Section 632 and Cal. Rules of Court 3.1590]; 12 4 Plaintiff objects to page 2, line 13 of the Proposed Judgment and Order on the 13 grounds that the in a trial by jury, the judgment is prepared and entered by the court clerk [C.C.P. 14 Section 664]; and 15 5 Plaintiff objects to page 2, lines 14 and 15 of the Proposed Judgment and Order, 16 including, but not limited to, the reference to C.C.P. Section 998 on the grounds that it is not 17 applicable in this case. 18 Dated: February 20, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, 19 20 (ua Dette Theresa J. Bai 21 Attorney for Plaintiff, Dr. Diana Blum 22 23 24 2 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER Exhibit “A” MARCIE ISOM FITZSIMMONS (SBN: 226906) HIEU T. WILLIAMS (SBN: 280585) GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANT, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Misom@gordonrees.com Hwilliams@gordonrees.com Attorneys for Defendant PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 11 DIANA P. BLUM, M.D., CASE NO. 115CV277582 12 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER 13 VS. 14 SUTTER HEALTH, a California corporation; PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL 15 GROUP, INC., a California corporation; PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION, a 16 California corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, 17 Trial Date: January 8, 2018 Defendants. ) Honorable Judge Drew C. Takaichi 18 Dept. 16 19 20 Trial in the above-referenced matter commenced on January 8, 2018 in Department 16 of 21 the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, the Honorable Drew C. Takaichi 22 presiding; the Plaintiff DIANA BLUM (“Plaintiff”) appearing by her attorney Theresa J. Barta 23 and the Defendant PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP, INC. (“Defendant”), 24 appearing by their attorneys Marcie I. Fitzsimmons and Hieu T. Williams. A jury of twelve 25 persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing 26 the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause 27 was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on special issues. The jury 28 deliberated and thereafter returned into Court with its verdict as follows: -1- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER 1 On Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract, specifically section 4.6 of the Shareholder Employment Agreement, the jury found for Plaintiff. 2 On Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract, specifically section 10.2.2 of the Shareholder Employment Agreement, the jury found for Defendant. 3 On Plaintiff’s claim for intentional interference with prospective business advantage, the jury found for Defendant. 4 The jury awarded Plaintiff damages in the amount of $28,415.00 for breach of contract, specifically section 4.6 of the Shareholder Employment Agreement. After considering all relevant evidence offered by the parties, this Court further finds that 10 Plaintiff has not met her burden of proof to show that Defendant violated Business and 11 Professions Code section 17200, and hereby finds for the Defendant. 12 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 13 1 Plaintiff be awarded damages in the amount of $28,415.00 for breach of contract. 14 2 Costs shall be awarded in accordance with Civil Code section 1717, Code of Civil 15 Procedure sections 998, 1031 and 1032, and any other applicable statute. 16 17 Dated: 18 B 19 HON. DREW C. TAKAICHI Superior Court Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE Iam employed in the county of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and a] not a party to the within action; my business address is 5160 Campus Drive, Newport Beach. California 92660. On February 20, 2018, I served the foregoing document(s) described as PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP on all interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Attorneys for Sutter Health and Palo Alto | Attorneys for Palo Alto Foundation Medical Medical Foundation: Group, Inc.: Lindbergh Porter, Esq. Marcie Ison Fitzsimmons, Esq. Maiko Nakarai-Kanivas, Esq. Gordon Rees LLP Littler Mendelson, P.C. 275 Battery St., #2000 333 Bush Street, 34" Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 986-5900 10 Tel: (415) 433-1940 Fax: (415) 986-8054 Fax: (415) 399-8490 Email: MIsom@gordonrees.com 11 Email: mnakaraikanivas@littler.com 12 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) — By personally delivering copies to the person served. 13 I caused to be delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee pursuant toC.C.P. § 1011. 14 (BY MAIL) — I deposited such envelope in the mail at Newport Beach, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s 1S practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Newport 16 Beach, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the part served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is or than one 17 (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. X__ (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) — I transmitted a PDF version of this document 18 by electronic mail on February 20, 2018 to the party(s) identified on the attached service list using the e-mail address(es) indicated. 19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is J (ua 20 true and correct. 21 Desde Theresa J. irta 22 23 24 3 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND ORDER