Ennix

Ennix v. Stanten

Good Law
556 F. Supp. 2d 1073·2008 WL 1902714·103 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1408·2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34757
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 28, 2008C 07-02486 WHACalifornia6,701 words

Opinion

Opinion

Alsup, J.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

In this dispute arising out of a medical peer review, plaintiff Dr. Coyness Ennix, Jr., filed suit against defendants Russell Stanten, Leigh Iverson, Steven Stanten, William Isenberg and Alta Bates Summit Medical Center (“ABSMC”) for, inter alia, racial discrimination. The essence of this case is that plaintiff, a cardiac surgeon, was subjected to investigation and temporary loss of hospital privileges after he performed a new surgical procedure on four patients, one of whom died and three of whom suffered severe complications. Plaintiff claims the heightened scrutiny was racially motivated. Defendant ABSMC now moves for summary judgment on the grounds that there was no “contract” at issue and plaintiff cannot establish racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. 1981. Even though plaintiff did not have a formal contract with the hospital, this order holds that the arrangement between them for hospital privileges constituted a contract within the meaning of Section 1981, or so a jury might reason ably determine. It further holds that material fact issues exist as to the issue of race discrimination, at least on the summary…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.