Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-02703/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-02703-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C-02-2703-JF (RS)

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION ETC.

(JFLC2)

**E-filed 5/27/05**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NIZAR A. YAQUB, M.D.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SALINAS VALLEY MEMORIAL

HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, d/b/a/ SALINAS

VALLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,

 Defendant.

Case Number C-02-2703-JF (RS)

ORDER (1) DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OR

CLARIFICATION; (2) DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

CERTIFICATION OF ORDER FOR

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL; AND

(3) SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

AND HEARING DATE ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF

FROM PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Nizar Yaqub, M.D. (“Yaqub”), a physician of Arab origin, brought the instant

action against Defendant Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System, dba Salinas Valley

Memorial Hospital (“Salinas”), on June 5, 2000, alleging that Salinas discriminated against him

based upon race and national origin by suspending and ultimately terminating his medical staff

membership privileges. On September 8, 2003, the Court issued an order disposing of all claims

except those arising under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985. On March 14, 2005, the Court

Case 5:02-cv-02703-JF Document 474 Filed 05/27/05 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case No. C-02-2703-JF (RS)

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION ETC.

(JFLC2)

issued an order denying Salinas’ motion for summary judgment as to these remaining claims and

granting Salinas’ motion for stay of proceedings (“March 14 Order”) pending conclusion of

administrative proceedings. Before the Court are: (1) Salinas’ motion for reconsideration or

clarification of the March 14 Order; (2) Salinas’ motion for certification of the March 14 Order

for interlocutory appeal; and (3) Yaqub’s motion for relief from stay for the purpose of seeking

relief from the protective order in this case. The Court concludes that Salinas’ motions are

appropriate for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and will

deny those motions for the reasons discussed below. The Court concludes that a hearing is

necessary for resolution of Yaqub’s motion and by this order sets a hearing date and briefing

schedule. 

A. Salinas’ Motion For Reconsideration Or Clarification

Salinas moved for summary judgment based in part upon its contention that Yaqub’s

discrimination claims arising out of his 2001 suspension are barred by the doctrine of res

judicata because those claims could have been litigated in the underlying administrative

proceedings and mandamus action. This Court rejected this argument after concluding that under

the most recent Ninth Circuit authority mandamus proceedings cannot raise a res judicata bar to

a later federal civil rights action. March 14 Order at 6. This Court further concluded that even if

mandamus proceedings theoretically could raise such a bar, Salinas failed to demonstrate that

Yaqub was afforded an opportunity to litigate his discrimination claims in the administrative

proceedings. Id. at 9. 

Salinas asserts that even if Yaqub was denied the opportunity to litigate his

discrimination claims in the administrative proceedings, he could have raised such improper

denial in the subsequent mandamus proceedings, and his failure to do so results in a res judicata

bar with respect to the instant action. Salinas requests that the Court clarify whether it

considered this latter issue in ruling on Salinas’ motion for summary judgment and that the Court

consider the issue now to the extent it did not do so when ruling on Salinas’ motion. Salinas also

requests that the Court reconsider its denial of Salinas’ motion with respect to certain issues that

Salinas contends actually were litigated in the administrative proceedings.

Case 5:02-cv-02703-JF Document 474 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case No. C-02-2703-JF (RS)

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION ETC.

(JFLC2)

With respect to Yaqub’s asserted failure to raise in the mandamus proceedings the denial

of opportunity to litigate his discrimination claims in the administrative proceedings, the Court

did not consider this issue and declines to do so now. While the issue was raised in passing in

Salinas’ moving papers, it was not briefed extensively by either party. In opposition to Salinas’

motion for reconsideration, Yaqub argues that he did in fact raise the limited scope of the

administrative proceedings in the subsequent mandamus proceedings, that in any event the

failure to do so could not give rise to a res judicata bar, and that Salinas is judicially estopped

from asserting such a bar on the facts of this case. Given the absence of focused argument on

these issues in the underlying summary judgment motion, the Court is not in a position to address

them on a motion for reconsideration or clarification.

With respect to the issues Salinas contends were actually litigated in the administrative

proceedings, summary judgment is inappropriate in light of the Court’s legal conclusion that the

administrative proceedings do not have preclusive effect as a matter of law. Even if the

administrative proceedings could have preclusive effect in theory, the Court concludes that the

type of piecemeal adjudication Salinas requests is inappropriate. 

B. Defendant’s Motion For Certification Of March 14 Order For Interlocutory Appeal

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district court may certify an order for interlocutory

appeal if the court concludes that (1) the order involves a controlling question of law, (2) as to

which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and (3) immediate appeal may

advance materially the ultimate termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); see also In re

Cement and Concrete Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1981). Interlocutory

appeal is the exception rather than the rule, and the party seeking interlocutory review bears the

burden of demonstrating that “exceptional circumstances” justify a departure from the basic

policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a final judgment. Cement and

Concrete, 673 F.2d at 1026.

Salinas requests that this Court certify two aspects of its March 14 Order for interlocutory

appeal: (1) whether mandamus proceedings can be the basis of a later claim preclusion bar and

(2) whether a litigant’s failure to raise in mandamus proceedings his assertion that he was denied

Case 5:02-cv-02703-JF Document 474 Filed 05/27/05 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Case No. C-02-2703-JF (RS)

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION ETC.

(JFLC2)

an opportunity to litigate discrimination claims in the underlying administrative proceedings can

be the basis of a later claim preclusion bar. 

The Court concludes that neither issue is appropriate for certification. While the Court

recognized in its March 14 Order that there appear to be conflicting cases on the first issue, the

issue is not “controlling” for purposes of this case because even if mandamus proceedings

theoretically could be the basis of a res judicata bar, Salinas has not demonstrated that Yaqub

had the opportunity to litigate his discrimination claims in those proceedings. As discussed

above, the Court concluded that Yaqub did not have the opportunity to litigate his discrimination

claims in the administrative proceedings, and did not reach the issue of whether Yaqub’s asserted

failure to raise this lack of opportunity in the subsequent mandamus proceedings could be the

basis of a preclusive bar. Because the Court did not reach this latter issue, such issue likewise

would not be appropriate for interlocutory appeal. Finally, it is not at all clear that an

interlocutory appeal would materially advance the litigation. The March 14 Order discusses at

length the possibility that Yaqub may prevail in the new administrative proceedings, thus

mooting all or a portion of the instant federal discrimination action. Under these circumstances,

the Court will deny Salinas’ motion for certification.

C. Plaintiff’s Motion For Relief From Stay To Address Protective Order

Yaqub requests relief from stay to bring a motion on shortened time regarding the

protective order in this case. In essence, Yaqub wishes to use discovery materials obtained in the

instant federal action in his administrative proceedings and asserts that the protective order

precludes him from doing so absent court order. Salinas objects to shortening time to hear this

issue and opposes any modification of the protective order.

The Court will grant Yaqub’s request for relief from stay for the limited purpose of

resolving the issue of the protective order. Salinas may file any further substantive opposition to

that request on or before June 3, 2005. Yaqub may file any reply on or before June 8, 2005. The

matter will be heard at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, June 10, 2005. 

Case 5:02-cv-02703-JF Document 474 Filed 05/27/05 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Case No. C-02-2703-JF (RS)

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION ETC.

(JFLC2)

ORDER

(1) Defendant’s motion for reconsideration or clarification is DENIED;

(2) Defendant’s motion for certification for interlocutory appeal is DENIED;

(3) Plaintiff’s request for relief from protective order is set for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on

Friday, June 10, 2005.

DATED: May 27, 2005

/s/ electronic signature authorized 

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:02-cv-02703-JF Document 474 Filed 05/27/05 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Case No. C-02-2703-JF (RS)

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION ETC.

(JFLC2)

This Order was served on the following persons:

James Clayton Culotta invalidaddress@myrealbox.com 

Michael A. Duncheon mduncheon@hansonbridgett.com,

lgregory@hansonbridgett.com;CalendarClerk@hansonbridgett.com 

Jacquelyn J. Garman jgarman@hansonbridgett.com, mless@hansonbridgett.com 

Charles M. Kagay cmk@slksf.com 

Bartholomew Lee blee@slksf.com 

Stephen B. Peck , Esq speck@hansonbridgett.com,

ypete@hansonbridgett.com;CalendarClerk@hansonbridgett.com 

Michael I. Spiegel mis@slksf.com 

Kelly A. Sutherland ksutherland@acslaw.com, sm@acslaw.com 

Case 5:02-cv-02703-JF Document 474 Filed 05/27/05 Page 6 of 6