Hrones v. Rideout Memorial Hospital ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] Glenda Hrones, No. 2:20-cv-00449-KJM-KJIN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Rideout Memorial Hospital DBA Adventist 15 Health and Rideout, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 At the upcoming hearing on February 11, 2022, the parties shall be prepared to discuss in 19 | a focused manner this court’s subject matter jurisdiction, including by addressing the authorities 20 | cited in this court’s order at ECF No. 38 and the arguments in the supplemental briefs at ECF 21 | Nos. 39 and 40. 22 The parties shall also be prepared to discuss whether the hospital 1s judicially estopped 23 | from arguing now that this action cannot be adjudicated unless this court interprets a collective 24 | bargaining agreement. See generally, e.g., New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) 25 | (interpreting and applying doctrine of judicial estoppel); Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. 26 | Marilyn Monroe LLC, 692 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2012) (same). The hospital previously argued it is 27 | entitled to summary judgment without interpreting a collective bargaining agreement. See 28 | generally Mem., ECF No. 27; Reply, ECF No. 35. 1 The parties are advised the court does not otherwise intend to hear arguments or ask 2 questions about whether defendant Rideout Memorial Hospital is entitled to summary judgment. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED 4 DATED: February 3, 2022.