T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M A R T E E N M O O R E , A n i ndi vi dua l a nd a re si dentof N evada, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. U S C U N I V E R S I T Y H O S P I T A L , I N C ., a Ca l i f o rn i aCo rp o r a t i o n ; M I CHAEL W AN G, DR. ; CONFLUENT S URGI CAL, I N C . , aM a s s a c hus e tt s C orpor a t i on, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 56930 D . C . N o. 2: 07 -c v-07 85 0-P A -E ME MOR AN DU M *

M A R T E E N M O O R E , A n i ndi vi dua l a nd a re si dentof N evada, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. U S C U N I V E R S I T Y H O S P I T A L , I N C ., a C a l i f o rn i aC o rp o r a t i o n ; DR . MI C HA E L Y. W AN G; CONFLUENT S URGI CAL, I N C . , aM a s s a c hus e tt s C orpor a t i on, D e f

e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s . N o. 10- 55274 D . C . N o. 2: 07 -c v-07 85 0-P A -E



# FI LED FEB 25 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSTh e H o n o r ab l e M a rkL. W o l f , Ch i e f D i s tr i c tJ u d g e f

o rth e U . S. ** D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orM a s s a c hus e tt s , B os t on, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 2 A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia P e r c y A nde r s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 10, 2011

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: H A W K IN S and F IS H E R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and W O L F , C hi ef D i stri ct Judg e. ** M a rte e n M o o r e ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s e n try o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f th e d e f e n d a n ts , its r e f

u s a l to c o n tin u e th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n , its d e n ia l o f h e rm o tio n s f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n o f

th e g r a n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a n d its d e n i a l o f h e rmo t i o n f

o rRu l e 1 1 s a n c t i o n s . W e a f f i rm. S um m a ry j udgm e ntw a s pr ope rbe c aus e M oor e f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h a“ ge nui ne d is p u te a s to a n y m a te r ia l f a c t” r e g a r d in g w h e th e rth e d e f e n d a n ts c au s e d h e rh a rm . F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (a ). “ [C ] ausa t i on m ustbe prov en w i thi n a re as on abl e m edi ca l p r o b ab ilityb a s e d u p o n c o m p e te n t e x p e rt te s tim o n y . M e r e p o s s ib ilitya lo n e is i nsuffi ci entt o est abl i sh a pri m a f ac i e c as e. ” Es

pi nos a v . L i t t le C o. of

M ar y H os p. , 3 1 C a l. A p p . 4 th 1 3 0 4 , 1 3 1 5 - 1 6 ( 1 9 9 5 ) . V ie w e d in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to M oor e , the e xpe rtt e s t i m ony be f or e the di s tr i c tc ourtw he n the s um m a ry j udgm e nt m ot i on w as deci ded atbestes t abl i shed a possi bi l i ty r ather than a prob abi l i ty that3

th e d e f e n d a n ts w e r e th e c au s e o f h e rin ju ry . Se e N

e e l y v . St. P aul

Fi r e & M

ar i ne I ns . C o. , 5 8 4 F . 2 d 3 4 1 , 3 4 5 -4 6 (9 th C i r. 1 9 7 8 ) (“ Iti s w el l -sett l ed th atp ro o f m u st be s uf f i c i e ntt o r a i s e ar e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e tha tthe a c torom i s s i on c om pl a i ne d of w a s in f a c t th e p r o x im a te c au s e o f in ju ry . . . . T h a t d e f

e n d a n t’s n e g lig e n c e c o u ld p o s s ib ly have been the cause i s notsuff i ci ent . ”) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by r e f us i ng t o c ont i nue the sum m ary j ud gm entm ot i on because M oo re fa i l ed t o com pl y w i th the R ul e 56(f) re qu i re m ent s. “ ‘ R ef

er ence s i n m em oranda and d ec l ar at i on s t o a need for di sc ov ery do notqua l i f

y a s m ot i ons unde rR ul e 56( f ) , ’ ” a nd “ ‘ [ f

] a i l ur e t o c om pl y w i th the r e qui r e m e nt s of

R ul e 56( f

) i s apr ope rgr ound f

orde ny i ng di s c ove ry a nd proceedi ng t o sum m ary j ud gm ent . ’ ” Ca lifo rn ia v . Ca m p b e ll , 138 F . 3d 772, 779 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( quot i ng B r ae T r ans p. , I nc . v . C oope rs & L

y br and , 790 F . 2d 1439, 1443 ( 9th C i r . 1986) ) ( a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) . I tw a s a l s o nota n abus e of di s c r e t i on to d en y M o o re ’s m o ti o n s f o r r ec o n sid er atio n o f th e s u m m ar y ju d g m en t. M o o re ’s

“ new l y di sc ov er ed evi dence” does notqu al i fyas such becaus e i tcoul d “ have been di sc ov er ed throu gh du e di l i gence” bef ore the sum m ary j ud gm entm ot i on w as d e c id e d . J

one s v . A e r o/

Che m C or

p. , 9 2 1 F . 2 d 8 7 5 , 8 7 8 (9 th C i r. 1 9 9 0 ). F i n al l y, the di stri ctcourtprop er l y deni ed M oo re ’ s m ot i on for s anct i on s. M oo re vi ol at ed the re qu i re m ent s f

or R ul e 11 sanct i on s m ot i on s by f i l i ng the m ot i on af

t ersum m ary4

ju d g m e n t, a n d in a n y e v e n t th e m o tio n w a s m e r itle s s . See B arber v . Mi l ler , 146 F . 3d 707, 711 ( 9th C i r . 1998) . T he di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng s are AF F I RME D. M oor e ’ s F e brua ry 10, 2011 m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n o f

th is C o u rt’s F e b ru a ry 4 , 2 0 1 1 d e n ia l o f h e rm o tio n to su p p l em en tth e d i stri ctco u rtreco rd i s D E N I E D . A l l other pendi ng m ot i on s are D EN I ED A S M O O T.