Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01177/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01177-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 896
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Arbitration
Cause of Action: 

---

1

19-CV-1177-AJB-BGS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TELE-PHYSICIANS, P.C., a Georgia 

Professional Corporation; and 

SPECIALISTS ON CALL, INC., a 

Delaware Corporation,

Petitioners,

v.

JENNIFER HAILEY, an individual,

Respondent.

Case No.: 19-CV-1177-AJB-BGS

ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS’

EX PARTE MOTION FOR A 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE

(Doc. No. 5)

Currently pending before the Court is Petitioners Tele-Physicians, P.C. (“TelePhysicians”) and Specialists on Call, Inc.’s (“SOC Telemed”) (collectively “Petitioners”) 

ex parte motion for temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary 

injunction should not issue. (Doc. No. 5.) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court 

finds the matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument. For 

the reasons explained more fully below, the Court DENIES Petitioners’ ex parte motion.

BACKGROUND

SOC Telemed provides sophisticated technology to hospitals, medical facilities and 

attending medical personnel throughout the country to assist with emergency medical 

consultations. (Doc. No. 5 at 10.) Tele-Physicians employs doctors to provide the 

Case 3:19-cv-01177-AJB-BGS Document 14 Filed 07/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

19-CV-1177-AJB-BGS

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

consultations. (Id.) Dr. Hailey is a psychiatrist residing in Oceanside, California. (Id.) Dr. 

Hailey was employed full-time by Tele-Physicians from December 1, 2016 to April 1, 

2018. (Id. at 10–11.) 

On April 1, 2018, Dr. Hailey’s employment changed from full time to part time. (Id.

at 11.) On October 31, 2018, Dr. Hailey voluntarily resigned from SOC Telemed. (Id.) A 

week after her resignation, Dr. Hailey filed an administrative wage claim with the 

California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”). (Id.) Dr. Hailey seeks 

damages in the amount of $54,880.00 for allegedly unpaid wages and waiting time 

penalties based on her employment with SOC Telemed between April 1, 2018 and October 

31, 2018. (Id. at 12.) DLSE has scheduled a “Berman hearing” for July 18, 2019. (Id.)

On May 9, 2019, SOC Telemed filed a Demand for Arbitration with the American 

Arbitration Association (“AAA”) to resolve this dispute. (Id.) Dr. Hailey has not responded 

to or participated in any of the proceedings with the AAA. (Id.)

On May 20, 2019, SOC Telemed filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration in the United 

States District Court for the District of Columbia against Dr. Hailey. (Id.) On May 31, 

2019, Dr. Hailey filed a civil action in San Diego Superior Court alleging various 

employment claims. (Id.) On June 21, 2019, SOC Telemed filed the instant Petition to 

Compel Arbitration. (Id.) In this instant action, SOC Telemed seeks to compel arbitration 

in California and have the arbitration governed by California law. (Id.)

LEGAL STANDARD

A temporary restraining order may be granted upon a showing “that immediate and 

irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can 

be heard in opposition[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The purpose of such an order, as a 

form of preliminary injunctive relief, is to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable 

harm “just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, 

Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). 

A request for a TRO is evaluated by the same factors that generally apply to a preliminary 

injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 

Case 3:19-cv-01177-AJB-BGS Document 14 Filed 07/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

19-CV-1177-AJB-BGS

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

(9th Cir. 2001). However, a TRO is an “extraordinary remedy” and is “never awarded as 

of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citing Munaf v. 

Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008)). Instead, the moving party bears the burden of 

demonstrating four factors: (1) “he is likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) “he is likely to 

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief”; (3) “the balance of equities 

tips in his favor”; and (4) “an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. 

Although a plaintiff must satisfy all four of the requirements set forth in Winter, the 

Ninth Circuit employs a sliding scale whereby “the elements of the preliminary injunction 

test are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing 

of another.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). 

DISCUSSION

Petitioners seek a temporary restraining order to delay or remove the July 18, 2019

“Berman hearing” before the DLSE. (Doc. No. 5 at 9.) 

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

First, it is unclear whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant 

action. The instant litigation is brought under diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction 

exists where the matter is between citizens of different States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The 

Court is presented with competing declarations regarding whether Dr. Hailey was actually 

employed by the California Tele-Physicians or the Georgia Tele-Physicians. (Doc. No. 8 

Hailey Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4, Doc. No. 12, Camic Decl. ¶ 11.) Further, Petitioners admit that TelePhysicians is registered in each state where its physicians live to report and pay 

corresponding payroll taxes. 1 (Doc. No. 12 at 6, Camic Decl. ¶ 12.) Petitioners explain that 

“[w]hile Tele-Physicians (CA) is engaged in the provision of consultation services within 

California, it is Tele-Physicians (GA) that, as the employing entity, provides the consulting 

physicians that rend the consultation services . . . In other words, Tele-Physicians (CA) 

 

1 Based on this representation, it is unclear to the Court whether Tele-Physicians may be a citizen of 

both states. Petitioners do not state whether Tele-Physicians is incorporated in both California and 

Georgia.

Case 3:19-cv-01177-AJB-BGS Document 14 Filed 07/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

19-CV-1177-AJB-BGS

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

helps provide the physical framework for the consultation services to occur (and multiple 

other states have similar entitiesfor the physical framework), but it is Tele-Physicians (GA) 

that employs and provides the physicians who often use equipment and other management 

support provided by SOC.” (Id. at 6–7, Camic Decl. ¶ 13.) Petitioners further attempt to 

show that Dr. Hailey knew she was employed by the Georgia Tele-Physicians as her letter 

of intent provided that she would be “working for Specialist on Call (SOC), Inc. a Delaware 

Corporation and its affiliated provider Tele-Physicians, PC (GATP)[.].” (Id. at 7, Camic 

Decl. ¶ 15, Ex. 1.) However, Petitioners fail to define GATP to the Court or in the letter of 

intent. The Court cannot infer what GATP represents. 

Dr. Hailey adamantly contends that she was employed by Tele-Physicians in 

California. (Doc. No. 8 at 9.) Dr. Hailey asserts that only a California medical professional 

could lawfully hire and supervise her in the practice of medicine in the state of California. 

(Id., Hailey Decl. ¶ 4.) Dr. Hailey also alleges that she was explicitly told by corporate 

officers of Petitioners that she was working for a California professional corporation when 

she specifically inquired about the legality of her employment. (Id., Hailey Decl. ¶ 3.)

Finally, Dr. Hailey’s employment agreement does not specify whether the Georgia 

Tele-Physicians or the California Tele-Physicians is her employer. (See Doc. No. 5, Camic 

Decl., Ex. A.) It is unclear whether Dr. Hailey was employed by the Georgia TelePhysicians or the California Tele-Physicians. At this stage of the litigation, it is ambiguous

whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. This reason alone merits denial of 

Petitioners’ ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order.2

B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

While it is uncertain if the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, the Court finds that 

Petitioners are unlikely to succeed on the merits. Dr. Hailey’s employment agreement 

states that arbitration is to take place in Washington D.C. under Virginia law. (Doc. No. 3, 

 

2 Based on the arguments presented by both parties, a Rule 12(b)(1) motion may be appropriate in this 

matter. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1).

Case 3:19-cv-01177-AJB-BGS Document 14 Filed 07/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

19-CV-1177-AJB-BGS

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

Camic Decl., Ex. A.) Here, Petitioners are requesting the Court to enforce arbitration in 

California under California law. (Doc. No. 5 at 13.) It appears that Petitioners are not only

attempting to sever the agreement, but also asking the Court to reform the contract by 

writing in additional terms. The Court does not have “such power under their inherent 

limited authority to reform contracts.” Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare 

Services, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83, 125 (Cal. 2000). Accordingly, the Court likely may not 

rewrite the arbitration agreement. Petitioners are unlikely to succeed on the merits of

enforcing the arbitration agreement so that arbitration occurs in California under California 

law.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners have not carried its burden of showing that a 

temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction should be issued. Accordingly, the 

Court DENIES Petitioners’ motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01177-AJB-BGS Document 14 Filed 07/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5