Coffman v. Queen of the Valley Medical Center, 17-cv-05575-YGR. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20171206c15
Visitors: 1
Filed: Dec. 05, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 05, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 34 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the Administrative Motion of Respondent Queen of the Valley Medical Center ("QVMC") for Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal (Dkt. No. 34), seeking a stay pursuant to Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Ninth Circuit Rule 27-3, and the response thereto. Having carefully considered the arguments therein and the record in this matter, th
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 34 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the Administrative Motion of Respondent Queen of the Valley Medical Center ("QVMC") for Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal (Dkt. No. 34), seeking a stay pursuant to Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Ninth Circuit Rule 27-3, and the response thereto. Having carefully considered the arguments therein and the record in this matter, the..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 34
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed the Administrative Motion of Respondent Queen of the Valley Medical Center ("QVMC") for Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal (Dkt. No. 34), seeking a stay pursuant to Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Ninth Circuit Rule 27-3, and the response thereto. Having carefully considered the arguments therein and the record in this matter, the motion for stay is DENIED. The Court does not find that a stay is warranted.
QVMC's argument that it was not permitted to present evidence relative to the irreparable harm factor is not supported by the record. Petitioner submitted evidence of irreparable harm regarding loss of union support and unilateral changes, in the moving papers. It is this evidence upon which the Court relied in reaching its decision. In its response to the moving papers, QVMC characterized the evidence as insubstantial and disingenuous, but did not offer its own evidence on this factor. Although QVMC objected to the petitioner's rebuttal evidence on this factor, which objection the Court overruled, QVMC did not seek to present its own evidence at or before the hearing.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This terminates Docket No. 34.
FootNotes
1. The health care benefits issue, to which QVMC refers in footnote 4 of the instant motion, concerned an upcoming open enrollment period, evidence of which was not part of the filings in the case and not discussed in the briefing. (11/21/17 Transcript 36:15-37:2.)
Source: Leagle
