Rutgard

Rutgard v. Haynes

Good Law
61 F. Supp. 2d 1082·1999 WL 669179·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12891
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMay 21, 1999Civ. 98-0524-TW(JFS)California4,657 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stiven, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT [35-1]

I.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement in the above-referenced case was heard before Magistrate Judge Stiven in Courtroom E on April 15, 1999. Attorneys Mike Leone and Reg Vi-tek appeared on behalf of Defendant. Attorney William Cohan appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Having read the written submissions of the parties, heard argument of counsel, and being fully advised, the Court FINDS and ORDERS as follows:

II.

BACKGROUND

In May 1992, the Attorney General for the State of California instituted an administrative proceeding against Plaintiff, seeking to revoke Plaintiffs medical license. Plaintiff retained attorneys Sotorrio, Stein, and Defendant to defend him on charges before the Board of Medical Quality Assurance (BMQA). In September 1992, before the conclusion of the administrative proceedings, Plaintiff filed suit against several of his former employees, alleging these employees had engaged in conduct resulting in antitrust violations (hereinafter referred to as the “antitrust” case). This suit was dismissed with prejudice in August 1993, after the…

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.