UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 13, 2010
DONGWOO JOHN CHANG, M.D., FRCS (C), PLAINTIFF,
CLAIR POMEROY, M.D., STUART H. COHEN, M.D., ALLAN D. SIEFKIN, M.D. AND DR. PAUL MUIZELAAR, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Frank C. Damrell, Jr. United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on defendants Dr. Allan D. Siefkin and Dr. Jan Paul Muizelaar's ("defendants") motion to lift the stay of this action, entered April 14, 2008 pursuant to the parties' stipulation (Docket #32).*fn1 This action arises from certain corrective action taken against plaintiff Dongwood John Chang, M.D. ("plaintiff") by the Medical Staff Executive Committee of the University of California Davis Health System (the "Medical Staff Executive Committee") in March 2008. Said action included a summary suspension and a recommendation that plaintiff's medical staff privileges and membership be terminated. On March 24, 2008, plaintiff submitted a request to the Medical Staff Executive Committee for a hearing on the recommended action, pursuant to Article VI of the Medical Staff Bylaws (the "Bylaws").
Plaintiff filed the instant action, seeking injunctive relief, on March 26, 2008. Following denial of plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order, on April 14, 2008, the parties filed a stipulation and order, requesting the court stay the action in its entirety pending plaintiff's pursuit of his administrative remedies through the university; specifically, "until completion of the hearing and, if applicable, appellate process set forth in the [Bylaws]." (Docket #32 at 2.)
However, on July 21, 2008, plaintiff withdrew his request for a hearing before the Executive Committee and resigned from medical staff appointment. In accordance with the Bylaws, plaintiff's medical staff membership and privileges at UC Davis were terminated effective July 25, 2008. (Navarra Decl., filed Feb. 1, 2010.)
Subsequently, defendants requested that plaintiff and the other named defendant stipulate to lifting the stay of this action. Defendant Cohen agreed to do so but plaintiff would not. (Id.) Defendants now move the court via the instant motion to lift the stay, arguing that the reason for imposing the stay, plaintiff's administrative proceedings before the Medical Staff Executive Committee, no longer exists.
Neither plaintiff nor Cohen filed a response to the motion. The court construes their failure to respond as a non-opposition to the motion. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Because the basis for entering the stay is no longer in effect, the court GRANTS defendants' motion and lifts the stay of this matter.
The parties shall file a joint pretrial (scheduling) conference statement on or before May 14, 2010. After review of the parties' statement, if necessary, the court will set a date for a scheduling conference. Otherwise, the court will issue a scheduling order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.