Timothy Ryan v. Brant Putnam

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMarch 21, 20222:17-cv-05752California16,999 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 3, 2017, plaintiff Timothy Ryan, M.D., formerly a vascular surgeon at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center (“Harbor-UCLA”), filed this action against defendants Brant Putnam, M.D., Janine Vintch, M.D., Anish Mahajan, M.D., Christian De Virgilio, M.D., Hal F. Yee, M.D, and Does 1-50. Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”). On October 6, 2017, Ryan filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”), which adds Roger Lewis, M.D., and Mitchell Katz, M.D., as defendants. Dkt. 14 (FAC). Ryan’s FAC alleges that defendants violated his First Amendment rights by disciplining him for reporting physician misconduct at Harbor-UCLA to federal, state, and local government agencies. Id. Ryan’s FAC alleges a single claim for relief, against all defendants: retaliation based on exercise of right to free speech, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. The FAC seeks punitive damages against defendants Putnam, Yee, Lewis, Katz, and de Virgilio. Id. On October 27, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's FAC. Dkt. 15. On February 15, 2018, the Hon. Manuel L. Real, now deceased, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. …

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.