Ndulue v. Fremont-Rideout Health Group
2:14-cv-00735
E.D. Cal.Jun 13, 2017Background
- Ndulue, an Nigerian pediatrician, works as hospital staff at Fremont-Rideout Health Group in California.
- Ndulue sued for retaliation and diversion of newborn patients to other pediatricians by the hospital.
- 2011 Settlement Agreement required amending the newborn pediatrician allocation policy to obtain written patient preferences.
- Ndulue sent two critical letters about care standards in 2012; hospital committee reviewed them and then MEC suspended him for seven days in 2013.
- Ndulue filed the 2014 complaint asserting eight claims; the court granted summary judgment on several and later on all remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cal. Health & Safety Code 1278.5 retaliation claim survives summary judgment | Ndulue engaged in protected activity via letters | Letters were inflammatory and violated the Code of Conduct | Yes, prima facie case shown, but pretext rejected; defendant granted on this claim |
| Whether claims for negligent and intentional interference with prospective business survive | Diversion of newborns reduced his future income | No evidence of actual damages or wrongful interference | No genuine dispute on damages or wrongful conduct; claims dismissed |
| Whether the breach of settlement agreement claim survives | Hospital breached the 2011 settlement by misallocating patients | Policy amended as required; no proof of actual breach | No reasonable jury could find breach; claim dismissed |
| Whether the unfair competition claim survives | Diverse conduct alleged as unfair business practices | No unlawful, fraudulent, or unfair conduct shown under 17200 | GRANTED; UCL claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) (prima facie retaliation framework; burden shifting)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; material facts must be genuine)
- Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000) (pretext analysis after defendant's non-retaliatory reasons)
- In re Quentin H., 230 Cal. App. 4th 608 (Cal. App. 4th 2014) (rebuttable presumption of retaliation under Cal. Health & Safety Code 1278.5(d)(1))
- Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003) (elements of intentional interference with prospective business; independence of wrongdoing)
- San Jose Const., Inc. v. S.B.C.C., Inc., 155 Cal. App. 4th 1528 (Cal. App. 2007) (requirement that interference be wrongful beyond improper motive)
- Della Penna v. Toyota, Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 11 Cal.4th 376 (Cal. 1995) (economic torts require wrongful act beyond mere improper motive)
- Thornhill Publishing Co. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1979) (conclusory statements insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Rickards v. Canine Eye Registration Found., Inc., 704 F.2d 1449 (9th Cir. 1983) (need for reasonably certain damages in damages claims)
- Burch v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (admissibility standards at summary judgment can be lenient for nonmovant)