Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02664/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02664-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alameda County Medical Center
Cross Claimant
Sunstone Behavioral Health, Inc.
Cross Defendant

Document Text:

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 

3402595.6 

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Waller Lansden 

Dortch & Davis, LLP 

Steven A. Browne (SBN 214444) 

Steven.Browne@wallerlaw.com 

WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP 

2222 6th St., Suite B 

Santa Monica, California 90405 

Telephone: (310) 804-6691 

Facsimile: (310) 399-1508 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Sunstone Behavioral Health, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SUNSTONE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, 

INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ALAMEDA COUNTY MEDICAL 

CENTER, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2:06-CV-02664-FCD-DAD 

Date: Jan. 4, 2010 

Time: 2:00 p.m. 

Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb 

Ctrm: 5, 14th floor 

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE; 

ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff Sunstone Behavioral Health, Inc. (“Sunstone”) and Defendant Alameda County 

Medical Center’s (“ACMC”), hereby stipulate as follows: 

1. On June 24, 2009, following a trial to the Court, the Court entered a judgment in 

favor of Sunstone and against ACMC in the amount of $492,680.58. On August 20, 2009, the 

Court entered an order awarding costs in favor of Sunstone and against ACMC in the amount 

Case 2:06-cv-02664-FCD-DAD Document 149 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 4
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 

3402595.6 

-2- 

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Waller Lansden 

Dortch & Davis, LLP 

of $354,001.38 (collectively, the June 24, 2009 judgment, and the August 20, 2009 order of 

costs shall be referred to as “the Judgment”). 

2. ACMC filed a Notice of Appeal on July 23, 2009. 

3. Sunstone filed a Motion for a Writ of Mandate on November 24, 2009. (Docket 

# 137.) 

4. ACMC filed a Motion for Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal on December 21, 

2009. (Docket # 138.) 

5. ACMC contends that it does not have sufficient resources to pay the Judgment 

during this fiscal year, ending June 30, 2010, and seeks a stay of judgment without posting a 

bond. Sunstone disputes this contention, and seeks either the posting of a supersedeas bond, or 

a writ of mandate compelling ACMC to pay the Judgment. 

6. The parties wish to resolve their Motions under the terms set forth below. 

Accordingly, the parties hereby STIPULATE, and the Court hereby ORDERS, as 

follows: 

a. ACMC shall include in its budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, a 

specific provision to provide funds in an amount sufficient to pay fifty percent (50%) of the 

Judgment, plus statutory interest, during that fiscal year. If the Ninth Circuit does not reverse 

the Judgment with a mandate for entry of judgment in favor of ACMC on or before June 30, 

2011, then ACMC shall also include in its budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, a 

specific provision to provide funds in an amount sufficient to pay the remaining balance of the 

Judgment, plus statutory interest, during that fiscal year. ACMC shall serve upon Sunstone a 

Case 2:06-cv-02664-FCD-DAD Document 149 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 4
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 

3402595.6 

-3- 

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Waller Lansden 

Dortch & Davis, LLP 

copy of its final budget for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2011, and June 30, 2012, within 

seven days of their respective approvals by ACMC’s governing body. 

b. Starting on July 31, 2010, and continuing on the last day of every month 

thereafter, ACMC shall pay one-twenty-fourth (1/24) of the Judgment, plus statutory interest, 

into an interest-bearing escrow account held at a bank or third party escrow company as agreed 

upon by the Parties. 

c. If the Judgment is affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, then: (1) all funds, including 

accrued interest, being held in escrow shall be released to Sunstone; and (2) ACMC shall pay 

the remaining balance on the Judgment, plus statutory interest, within thirty days of the 

decision affirming the Judgment. 

d. If the Judgment is reversed with a mandate that judgment be entered in favor of 

ACMC, then all funds, including accrued interest, being held in escrow shall be released to 

ACMC, after time for filing a petition for re-hearing has expired without a petition being filed, 

but if Sunstone files a petition for re-hearing, then the funds shall remain in escrow pending 

outcome of the petition. If the Judgment is reversed with a mandate for a new trial on some or 

all of the issues, then the funds shall remain in escrow pending outcome of the new trial. If 

Sunstone obtains a judgment after a new trial, then all funds shall remain in escrow until 

exhaustion of all appeals by ACMC. If ACMC obtains judgment in its favor after a new trial, 

then all funds shall remain in escrow until exhaustion of all appeals by Sunstone. 

// 

// 

// 

//

Case 2:06-cv-02664-FCD-DAD Document 149 Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 4
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 

3402595.6 

-4- 

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Waller Lansden 

Dortch & Davis, LLP 

 e. The Judgment is otherwise STAYED pending appeal. 

f. The parties’ respective motions are otherwise withdrawn. 

 

Submitted by: 

Dated: January 27, 2010 WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP 

By: /s/ Steven A. Browne, Esq

Steven A. Browne 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Sunstone Behavioral 

Health, Inc. 

Dated: January 27, 2010 GOODMAN & ASSOCIATES 

 By: /s/ Summer Haro, Esq. (as authorized on Jan. 

27, 2010)

Karen M. Goodman 

Summer Haro 

Attorneys for Defendant Alameda County 

Medical Center 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Date: January 29, 2010 

Case 2:06-cv-02664-FCD-DAD Document 149 Filed 01/29/10 Page 4 of 4