Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00437/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00437-22/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DONALD GOLDEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY 

PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 10-cv-00437-JSW 

ORDER REQUIRING BRIEFING ON 

JURY ISSUE AND VACATING 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING PENDING 

RULING 

Re: Docket No. 117 

On April 8, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed this 

Court’s Order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and 

Defendants. Golden v. California Emergency Physician’s Medical Group, 782 F.3d 1083 (9th 

Cir. 2015). In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit stated that “[o]n remand, the district court should 

determine in the first instance whether the no-employment provision,” in the settlement agreement 

“constitutes a restraint of a substantial character” to Plaintiff’s medical practice. Id. at 1093. 

After the Ninth Circuit issued the mandate, the Court set a status conference, and the 

parties submitted a status report, in which they requested that the Court conduct an evidentiary 

hearing on the issue of whether the no-employment provision constituted a restraint of a 

substantial character on Plaintiff’s medical practice. The Court granted the parties request, 

scheduled an evidentiary hearing for February 8, 2015, and ordered the parties to submit a status 

report regarding the number of witnesses and estimated length of testimony. (See Docket Nos. 

105-112.) 

The Court has received the parties’ status report. (Docket No. 117.) In that report, they 

advise the Court that there is a dispute about whether a jury is “allowed” for the evidentiary 

hearing. The Court shall permit simultaneous briefing on this issue. The Court also requests that 

Case 4:10-cv-00437-JSW Document 118 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

the

sub

sum

evi

res

bri

Da

e parties brie

If the C

bstantial cha

mmary adjud

idence? 

The par

spective posi

The par

There s

 The Co

efs. 

IT IS S

ated: January

ef the followi

Court conclud

aracter” issue

dication, wit

rties shall su

itions by no 

rties shall fil

shall be no re

ourt shall res

SO ORDER

y 27, 2016 

ing question

des that a jur

e be resolved

th the submis

ubmit openin

later than Fe

le responses 

eplies. 

set the hearin

RED. 

2

n: 

ry is not requ

d without a l

ssion of decl

ng briefs, not

ebruary 3, 20

to the openi

ng, if necess

quired or allo

live evidenti

larations, de

t to exceed t

016. 

ing briefs on

sary, once it 

JE

Un

owed, can th

ary hearing,

eposition test

ten (10) page

n February 1

has issued it

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

e “restraint o

 such as on a

timony, or o

es, setting fo

0, 2016. 

ts ruling on t

WHITE 

District Judg

of a 

a motion for

other 

orth their 

the parties’ 

ge 

r

Case 4:10-cv-00437-JSW Document 118 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 2