%PDF-1.3
%%�����
%%Page: 1 1            
4 0 obj
<<
/Length 5 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
/F1 13 Tf 100 Tz
88.1395 -8.4 Td
1.3 Tw
0 Tc
(FOR PUBLICATION) Tj
/F1 15 Tf 100 Tz
-78.2395 -24 Td
1.5 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
43.47 -16 Td
(FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-53.37 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
(�) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(In re: P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(G) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
137.004 -13.2 Td
(Debtor,) Tj
-137.004 -18 Td
173 0 Td
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
42.07 -13.2 Td
(No. 04-56334) Tj
-215.07 -4.8 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HANDRAHAS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(GARWAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, M.D.,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
124.332 -13.2 Td
(Appellant,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
102.402 0 Td
(D.C. No.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-45.114 -7.9 Td
2 Tw
(�) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
18.714 -5.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(CV-01-10027-CBM) Tj
-117.834 -4.8 Td
(v.) Tj
141.84 -13.2 Td
(OPINION) Tj
-224.34 -4.8 Td
(P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(., a California professional) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(corporation, d/b/a P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RO) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EALTH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ETWORK) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
129.012 -13.2 Td
(Appellee.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
52.608 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
(�) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-142.878 -26.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj
21.438 -13.2 Td
(for the Central District of California) Tj
-23.178 -13.2 Td
(Consuelo B. Marshall, Chief Judge, Presiding) Tj
57.468 -26.2 Td
(Argued and Submitted) Tj
-32.424 -13.2 Td
(June 8, 2006�Pasadena, California) Tj
31.158 -26.2 Td
(Filed January 17, 2007) Tj
-79.158 -26.2 Td
(Before: Dorothy) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(W.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Nelson, Johnnie) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(B.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Rawlinson, and) Tj
63.192 -13.2 Td
(Carlos) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(T.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Bea, Circuit) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Judges.) Tj
-6.966 -26.2 Td
(Opinion by Judge D.W. Nelson;) Tj
9.762 -13.2 Td
(Dissent by Judge Rawlinson) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -65.95 m 183.8 -65.95 l s
.5 w 0 -130.95 m 173 -130.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -154.7 m 186.6 -73.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -252.6 m 186.6 -171.7 l s
.9 w 0 -259.55 m 183.3 -259.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
297.75 -664.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(667) Tj
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
3538
endobj
3 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 4 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 2 2            
12 0 obj
<<
/Length 13 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
120.996 -27.6 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-120.996 -26.2 Td
.07 Tw
(Henry R. Fenton, Law Offices of Henry R. Fenton, Los Ange-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(les, California, briefed and argued for the appellant. ) Tj
0 -26.2 Td
.71 Tw
(Randall J. Sherman, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, New-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.71 Tw
(port Beach, California; and Garrick A. Hollander, Winthrop) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.42 Tw
(Couchot, Newport Beach, California, briefed for the appellee.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.18 Tw
(Marc J. Winthrop, Winthrop Couchot, Newport Beach, Cali-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.15 Tw
(fornia, briefed and argued for the appellee. Paul L. Gale,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.85 Tw
(Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Newport Beach, Califor-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(nia, argued for the appellee. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
123.666 -44.2 Td
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-123.666 -26.2 Td
(D.W. NELSON, Senior Circuit Judge: ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
6.2 Tw
(Chandrahas Agarwal \() Tj
(�Agarwal) Tj
(�\) appeals the district) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
2.71 Tw
(court's decision affirming \(1\) ) Tj
(the bankruptcy court's order) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -8.15 m 300 -8.15 l s
.5 w 0 -197.15 m 300 -197.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(671) Tj
-233.7579 0 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(N RE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(: P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
1971
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 12 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 3 3            
15 0 obj
<<
/Length 16 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.67 Tw
0 Tc
(rejecting his contract with Pomona Valley Medical Group,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
(Inc., dba ProMed Health Network \() Tj
(�ProMed) Tj
(�\) and \(2\) the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.54 Tw
(bankruptcy court's subsequent order dismissing Agarwal's) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.57 Tw
(complaint in an adversary proceeding against ProMed. We) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.03 Tw
(have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.03 Tw
(1291, and we affirm,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(in part, and reverse, in part. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
104.334 -26.4 Td
(BACKGROUND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-92.334 -26.4 Td
2.62 Tw
(On May 14, 1999, Chandrahas Agarwal, a primary care) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
2.28 Tw
(physician and certified cardiologist, entered into a provider) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.16 Tw
(agreement \(the ) Tj
(�Agreement) Tj
(�\) with ProMed, an ) Tj
(�independent) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.24 Tw
(practice association) Tj
(�) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( in Southern California. Pursuant to the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.42 Tw
(Agreement, Agarwal provided primary or basic medical ser-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
4.87 Tw
(vices to patients in ProMed's network. When a patient) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.28 Tw
(required specialty medical services, such as cardiology tests,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.05 Tw
(Agarwal was required to seek authorization from ProMed's) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(medical director. ) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
5.05 Tw
(Under the Agreement, the twelve-month contract was) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.61 Tw
(extended automatically for an unlimited number of additional) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.38 Tw
(twelve-month periods, unless ProMed provided written notice) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.6 Tw
(of non-renewal.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( At the end of its first term, the Agreement) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.87 Tw
(was extended to June 1, 2000, by the automatic renewal pro-) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.66 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(As Agarwal is appealing the district court's order dismissing his com-) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.6 Tw
(plaint for failure to state a claim, we accept as true the factual allegations) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(in Agarwal's Second Amended Complaint. ) Tj
10 -14.1 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.58 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(An independent practice association \(IPA\) is an organization that con-) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
1.78 Tw
(tracts with individual physicians to provide services to the enrollees of) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.28 Tw
(managed health care plans \() Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(i.e.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
(preferred provider organizations \(PPOs\)) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.27 Tw
(and health maintenance organizations \(HMOs\)\). The physician members) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.88 Tw
(maintain their own private practices and may see patients not enrolled in) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.92 Tw
(the health care plans with which the IPA has agreements. Carl H. Hitch-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.53 Tw
(ner, et al., ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Integrated Delivery Systems: A Survey of Organizational Mod-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(els) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 29 W) Tj
/F2 7 Tf 101.4 Tz
.69 Tw
(AKE) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 7 Tf 101.4 Tz
.69 Tw
(OREST) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1 Tw
( L. R) Tj
/F2 7 Tf 101.4 Tz
.69 Tw
(EV) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1 Tw
(. 273, 275 \(1994\). ) Tj
10 -14 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.63 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The Agreement also provided other options for severing the parties') Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
(relationship, including termination with or without cause. Each form of) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(termination provided different notice and process requirements. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -325.55 m 300 -325.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(672) Tj
49.7421 0 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(N RE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(: P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
4609
endobj
14 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 15 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 4 4            
19 0 obj
<<
/Length 20 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2 Tw
0 Tc
(vision. Shortly after, on June 29, 2000, ProMed voluntarily) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. ) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
2.16 Tw
(Approximately six months later, ProMed began routinely) Tj
-12 -13 Td
4 Tw
(denying initial authorization for cardiology tests Agarwal) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.75 Tw
(requested for his patients. After Agarwal protested, ProMed) Tj
0 -13 Td
.55 Tw
(eventually authorized most of the procedures he requested. In) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(April 2001, ProMed warned Agarwal that if he disagreed with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.9 Tw
(or continued to protest ProMed's authorization policies he) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(would be terminated. A month later, the company sent Agar-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.26 Tw
(wal written notice that it would not be retaining his services) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.11 Tw
(after the expiration of the second year of the Agreement.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4 Tw
(Although the Agreement's non-renewal provision did not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(require justification, the notice stated that Agarwal's frequent) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(ordering of ) Tj
(�unnecessary tests for patients simply to increase) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.21 Tw
([his] compensation at ProMed's expense) Tj
(� justified termina-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(tion with cause. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.04 Tw
(Following the expiration of the Agreement, Agarwal com-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.73 Tw
(menced adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court, alleging) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5 Tw
(various California statutory and common law causes of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(action. Thereafter, ProMed moved to ) Tj
(�reject) Tj
(� its executory) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(contract with Agarwal and to dismiss his complaint for failure) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(to state a claim. The bankruptcy court granted both motions) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(but permitted Agarwal to file an amended complaint.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Agar-) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.8 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.55 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(We note that the contract at issue here was, indeed, executory on June) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
1.76 Tw
(29, 2000, which was the date ProMed filed its bankruptcy petition. To) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(determine whether a contract may be rejected under 11 U.S.C. �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(365\(a\),) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.59 Tw
(we look to whether the contract was executory at the time of the filing of) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1.06 Tw
(the bankruptcy petition. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
( In re Robert L. Helms Constr. & Dev.) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1.19 Tw
(Co.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 139 F.3d 702, 706 \(9th Cir. 1998\) \(en banc\) \(holding that to deter-) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.47 Tw
(mine whether a contract is executory, ) Tj
(�we look to outstanding obligations) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.71 Tw
(at the time the petition for relief is filed and ask whether both sides must) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(still perform) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Coast Trading Co.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 744 F.2d 686, 692-93 \(9th Cir.) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.27 Tw
(1984\) \(holding that a contract is executory if at the time of the bankruptcy) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.14 Tw
(petition filing, the contract is not yet fully performed on both sides\). Agar-) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.08 Tw
(wal concedes that his contract with ProMed was executory when the bank-) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.99 Tw
(ruptcy petition was filed in this case; thus, ProMed could move to reject) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1 Tw
(the contract under 11 U.S.C. �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(365\(a\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -333.55 m 300 -333.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(673) Tj
-233.7579 0 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(N RE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(: P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
20 0 obj
4484
endobj
18 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 19 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 5 5            
22 0 obj
<<
/Length 23 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.3 Tw
0 Tc
(wal, instead, appealed to the district court, which affirmed the) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(bankruptcy court's decisions. This timely appeal followed. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
113.328 -25.5 Td
(DISCUSSION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-101.328 -25.5 Td
1 Tw
(We review de novo the district court's decision in a bank-) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(ruptcy appeal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Onecast Media, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 439 F.3d 558, 561) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2 Tw
(\(9th Cir. 2006\). Therefore, we must consider independently) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.71 Tw
(the bankruptcy court's underlying ruling, applying the same) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(standard of review as the district court. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -25.6 Td
3.51 Tw
(I.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
3.51 Tw
(Rejection of the Executory Contract and the Business) Tj
18.9 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(Judgment Rule ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
-6.9 -25.6 Td
1.85 Tw
([1]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( As a preliminary matter, we hold that the bankruptcy) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
.07 Tw
(court did not err in approving ProMed's rejection of its execu-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3.25 Tw
(tory contract with Agarwal.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Under 11 U.S.C. �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.25 Tw
(365\(a\), a) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
5.5 Tw
(Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession, ) Tj
(�subject to the court's) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.67 Tw
(approval, may . . . reject any executory contract.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See also ) Tj
(In) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.6 Tw
(re Robert L. Helms Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 139 F.3d 702) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
3.33 Tw
(\(9th Cir. 1998\) \(en banc\). In making its determination, a) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.94 Tw
(bankruptcy court need engage in ) Tj
(�only a cursory review of a) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.95 Tw
([debtor-in-possession]'s decision to reject the contract. Spe-) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
2.57 Tw
(cifically, a bankruptcy court applies the business judgment) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.78 Tw
(rule to evaluate a [debtor-in-possession]'s rejection decision) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.84 Tw
(. . . .) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Durkin v. Benedor Corp. \(In re G.I. Indust., Inc.\)) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 204) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.39 Tw
(F.3d 1276, 1282 \(9th Cir. 2000\) \(citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(NLRB v. Bildisco &) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.86 Tw
(Bildisco) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 465 U.S. 513, 523 \(1984\)\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also In re Chi-Feng) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
(Huang) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 23 B.R. 798, 800 \(9th Cir. BAP 1982\) \(citing cases\).) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.5 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.46 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(As explained ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(supra) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, the contract was executory. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See In re Robert L.) Tj
-10 -11 Td
.16 Tw
(Helms) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 139 F.3d at 706. We need not determine whether we are persuaded) Tj
0 -11 Td
1 Tw
(that ) Tj
(�events after the filing may cause the contract to be regarded as not) Tj
0 -11 Td
1.36 Tw
(executory when the motion to assume or reject was made, such as con-) Tj
0 -11 Td
.65 Tw
(tracts which expired post-petition by their own terms after the date of fil-) Tj
0 -11 Td
.06 Tw
(ing but before the motion was heard.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Spectrum Info. Tech., Inc.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 193) Tj
0 -11 Td
3.63 Tw
(B.R. 400, 404 \(E.D.N.Y. 1996\) \(internal alterations omitted\) \(citing) Tj
0 -11 Td
.28 Tw
(cases\). Assuming the allegations in Agarwal's complaint are true, his con-) Tj
0 -11 Td
1.21 Tw
(tract with ProMed did not expire by its own terms; it was terminated in) Tj
0 -11 Td
1 Tw
(violation of them. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -379.05 m 300 -379.05 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(674) Tj
49.7421 0 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(N RE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(: P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
4607
endobj
21 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 22 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 6 6            
25 0 obj
<<
/Length 26 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.87 Tw
0 Tc
([2]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We have never had the occasion to define the contours) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
0 Tw
(of the business judgment rule in the bankruptcy context. How-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
(ever, courts are no more equipped to make subjective business) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.11 Tw
(decisions for insolvent business than they are for solvent busi-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.18 Tw
(nesses, so we have no difficulty concluding that its formula-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.62 Tw
(tion in corporate litigation is also appropriate here. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.7 Tw
(Lubrizol Enter. v. Richmond Metal Finishers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 756 F.2d 1043,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.78 Tw
(1047 \(4th Cir. 1985\) \(adopting the corporate business judg-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(ment rule for bankruptcy proceedings\). ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.7 Td
2.75 Tw
([3]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Thus, in evaluating the rejection decision, the bank-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
3.66 Tw
(ruptcy court should presume that the debtor-in-possession) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.63 Tw
(acted prudently, on an informed basis, in good faith, and in) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.33 Tw
(the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.11 Tw
(of the bankruptcy estate. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Navellier v. Sletten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 262 F.3d) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.8 Tw
(923, 946 n.12 \(9th Cir. 2001\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(FDIC v. Castetter) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 184 F.3d) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.3 Tw
(1040, 1043 \(9th Cir. 1999\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also In re Chi-Feng Huang) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.07 Tw
(23 B.R. at 801 \() Tj
(�The primary issue is whether rejection would) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.67 Tw
(benefit the general unsecured creditors.) Tj
(�\). It should approve) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.52 Tw
(the rejection of an executory contract under �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.52 Tw
(365\(a\) unless it) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.88 Tw
(finds that the debtor-in-possession's conclusion that rejection) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.83 Tw
(would be ) Tj
(�advantageous is so manifestly unreasonable that it) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.1 Tw
(could not be based on sound business judgment, but only on) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.83 Tw
(bad faith, or whim or caprice.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lubrizol) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 756 F.2d at 1047.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.47 Tw
(Such determinations, clearly, involve questions of fact, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.28 Tw
(Richmond Leasing Co. v. Capital Bank) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 762 F.2d 1303, 1307-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.66 Tw
(08 \(5th Cir. 1985\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lubrizol) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 756 F.2d at 1047, which we) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.08 Tw
(review for clear error. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Rains) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 428 F.3d 893, 900 \(9th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(2005\). ) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
1.95 Tw
(Turning to the instant case, ProMed justified its business) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.12 Tw
(decision, explaining, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(inter alia) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, that its Chapter 11 reorganiza-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.51 Tw
(tion strategy included efforts to reduce costs by limiting the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.5 Tw
(number of physicians in its network and severing relation-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.81 Tw
(ships with physicians, like Agarwal, who created financial) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.95 Tw
(burdens by ordering treatment and tests ProMed considered) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(unnecessary. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(675) Tj
-233.7579 0 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(N RE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(: P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
26 0 obj
4255
endobj
24 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 25 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 7 7            
28 0 obj
<<
/Length 29 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.85 Tw
0 Tc
([4]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We can discern no reason that ProMed's stated reorga-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.58 Tw
(nization strategy was so unreasonable as to indicate it acted) Tj
0 -13 Td
.18 Tw
(in bad faith or on whim or caprice in rejecting the Agreement.) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.88 Tw
(Nor has Agarwal offered any. He merely countered that, in) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.53 Tw
(making its determination to reject an executory contract, a) Tj
0 -13 Td
.08 Tw
(debtor-in-possession must abide by state law health and safety) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.03 Tw
(regulations. We do not quarrel with this position. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, ) Tj
(e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
1.4 Tw
(Hillis Motors, Inc. v. Hawaii Auto Dealers' Ass'n) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 997 F.2d) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.62 Tw
(581, 592 \(9th Cir. 1993\) \(citation omitted\) \(holding that a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.52 Tw
(bankruptcy trustee must ) Tj
(�manage a business in accordance) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.15 Tw
(with state law, as any other person must) Tj
(�\). However, Agarwal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(has failed to explain how ProMed's rejection of the Agree-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ment violates California health and safety laws. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.11 Tw
(Agarwal also argued that in approving the decision to reject) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(an executory contract the bankruptcy court must weigh equi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.02 Tw
(table concerns. He urges us that ) Tj
(�it is proper for the court to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(refuse to authorize rejection of a lease or executory contract) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.4 Tw
(where the party whose contract is to be rejected would be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(damaged disproportionately to any benefit to be derived by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.05 Tw
(the general creditors of the estate . . . .) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Chi-Feng) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(Huang) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 23 B.R. at 801. Again, we do not disagree. There may) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.83 Tw
(be cases where the disproportionate damage to the party) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(whose contract is to be rejected demonstrates that the debtor-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(in-possession's decision could not be based on sound business) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(judgment. Here, however, there is no such indication. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.87 Tw
([5]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We find it somewhat suspect that ProMed did not seek) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.58 Tw
(to reject the Agreement until Agarwal filed an adversary) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(claim in the bankruptcy court, more than a year after ProMed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.66 Tw
(filed its bankruptcy petition. However, after a hearing in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(which both Agarwal and ProMed presented their arguments) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.21 Tw
(and representations, the bankruptcy court found that the rejec-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.48 Tw
(tion of the Agreement was in the best interests of the bank-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.36 Tw
(ruptcy estate and its creditors. That finding of fact necessarily) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(indicates that the bankruptcy court believed ProMed's justifi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.78 Tw
(cations for its actions. The bankruptcy court approval of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(ProMed's decision, which stated the decision was ) Tj
(�within the) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(676) Tj
49.7421 0 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(N RE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(: P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
29 0 obj
4074
endobj
27 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 28 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 8 8            
32 0 obj
<<
/Length 33 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2 Tw
0 Tc
(sound `business judgment' of the [d]ebtor,) Tj
(� also constitutes) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.71 Tw
(an implicit finding that ProMed did not act in bad faith or on) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.42 Tw
(whim or caprice. On appeal, Agarwal does not challenge) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(these findings.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.7 Td
1.45 Tw
([6]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( On the record before us, we do not have ) Tj
(�the definite) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.4 Tw
(and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed by the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.17 Tw
(bankruptcy judge.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Rains) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 428 F.3d at 900 \(requiring the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.27 Tw
(reviewing court to accept findings of fact unless it is defi-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.46 Tw
(nitely and firmly convinced that the finding was erroneous\).) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(Therefore, rejection of the Agreement was proper. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.7 Td
(II.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Dismissal of Agarwal's Complaint) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.6 Td
1.3 Tw
([7]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Our conclusion that rejection was proper does not end) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.75 Tw
(our inquiry. ProMed's rejection of the Agreement constituted) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.08 Tw
(a breach of that contract effective immediately before ProMed) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.23 Tw
(filed for bankruptcy on June 29, 2000. 11 U.S.C. �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.23 Tw
(365\(g\). As) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.11 Tw
(of that date, ProMed was relieved of its performance obliga-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.3 Tw
(tions under the Agreement, and Agarwal was permitted to file) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.26 Tw
(an unsecured claim for breach of contract. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Onecast) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.07 Tw
(Media, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 439 F.3d at 563 \(citing cases\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Pacific) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.06 Tw
(Express, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 780 F.2d 1482, 1486 & n.3 \(9th Cir. 1986\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.4 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.25 Tw
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(As we discuss below, Agarwal does contend that ProMed's reasons for) Tj
-10 -11.4 Td
.73 Tw
(not renewing the Agreement were pretextual and that the real reason was) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.97 Tw
(retaliation. Clearly, retaliation may constitute bad faith. Agarwal raises) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.39 Tw
(this argument, however, not with respect to ProMed's decision to reject) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.6 Tw
(the contract but in relation to his substantive causes of action. Even if we) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
4.45 Tw
(borrowed Agarwal's retaliatory termination arguments in evaluating) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.41 Tw
(ProMed's decision under �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.41 Tw
(365\(a\), the bankruptcy court's implicit finding) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.02 Tw
(that ProMed did not act in bad faith necessarily belies Agarwal's argument) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.49 Tw
(that it did. Under the clear error standard of review, we are not persuaded) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(that this finding was incorrect. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Rains) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 428 F.3d at 900. ) Tj
10 -14.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.23 Tw
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The dissent's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, that ProMed's) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.4 Tw
(rejection of the Agreement was cautionary, and perhaps even superfluous,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.7 Tw
(does not mean the rejection had no legal effect. Indeed, the rejection was) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.87 Tw
(intended to retroactively relieve the bankruptcy estate of obligations to) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.67 Tw
(perform under the contract. Such relief became effective immediately) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -316.35 m 300 -316.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(677) Tj
-233.7579 0 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(N RE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(: P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
33 0 obj
4641
endobj
31 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 32 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 9 9            
35 0 obj
<<
/Length 36 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.33 Tw
0 Tc
(Thus, accepting Agarwal's allegations as true, we must con-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.02 Tw
(sider whether it appears beyond doubt that he can prove no set) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.5 Tw
(of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.95 Tw
(relief. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Zimmer v. PSB Lending Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 313 F.3d 1220, 1222) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.9 Tw
(\(9th Cir. 2002\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012\(b\) \(incorpo-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(rating Fed. R. Civ. P. 12\(b\)\(6\)\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
12 -27.4 Td
1.81 Tw
(In his complaint, Agarwal asserts that ProMed's termina-) Tj
-12 -13.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(tion of the Agreement supported six causes of action: ) Tj
22 -27.4 Td
2.52 Tw
() Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
2.52 Tw
(\(1\)) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
2.52 Tw
(Retaliatory termination in violation of Cal.) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(Bus. & Prof. Code �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(2056; ) Tj
0 -27.3 Td
1.55 Tw
() Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.55 Tw
(\(2\)) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.55 Tw
(Violation of the notice and hearing require-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(ments of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(809, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(et seq.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -27.2 Td
1.13 Tw
(before the petition for bankruptcy was filed on June 29, 2000. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See In re) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
.62 Tw
(Rega Props., Ltd.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 894 F.2d 1136, 1140 \(9th Cir. 1990\). Under 11 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
.7 Tw
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.7 Tw
(365\(g\)\(1\), the contract is deemed breached one day prior to the date on) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
1.09 Tw
(which the bankruptcy petition was filed, even if the term of the contract) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
1 Tw
(had expired. ) Tj
10 -16.9 Td
1.75 Tw
(Thus, by operation of law, ProMed's rejection of the contract, while) Tj
-10 -11.7 Td
.93 Tw
(retroactively effective to discharge its obligation to perform, created sec-) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
.86 Tw
(ondary rights of compensation in Agarwal, including rights for breach of) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
2.81 Tw
(contract. Although liability for breach of contract may have been an) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
.76 Tw
(unforeseen consequence of ProMed's decision, a consequence it remains.) Tj
10 -14.6 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
3.81 Tw
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(In dismissing Agarwal's earlier complaints, the bankruptcy court) Tj
-10 -11.7 Td
1 Tw
(explained, ) Tj
18 -16.9 Td
.46 Tw
(I really believe . . . that you can come up with a complaint that's) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
.03 Tw
(going to survive a motion to dismiss. But . . . it will not be a com-) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
.51 Tw
(plaint in the normal easy pleading ways of the initial parts of the) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
.43 Tw
(Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Instead, it will be [a] very spe-) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
1 Tw
(cific, very carefully drafted complaint. ) Tj
-18 -16.9 Td
.55 Tw
(This requirement was patently improper. The pleading requirements in an) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
2.3 Tw
(adversary proceeding require only notice pleading�) Tj
(�a short and plain) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.69 Tw
(statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.) Tj
(� Fed.) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.8 Tw
(R. Civ. P. 8\(a\)\(2\). ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7008 \(incorporating Rule 8's) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1 Tw
(pleading rules\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -213.15 m 300 -213.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(678) Tj
49.7421 0 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(N RE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(: P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
36 0 obj
4345
endobj
34 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 35 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 10 10            
38 0 obj
<<
/Length 39 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
1.66 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.66 Tw
(\(3\)) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.66 Tw
(Violation of California's common law right) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(to fair procedure; ) Tj
0 -26.3 Td
4.11 Tw
() Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
4.11 Tw
(\(4\)) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
4.11 Tw
(Breach of the notice requirements of the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(Agreement; ) Tj
0 -26.2 Td
1.33 Tw
() Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.33 Tw
(\(5\)) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.33 Tw
(Unfair competition in violation of Cal. Bus.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(& Prof. Code �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(17200, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(et seq.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(; and ) Tj
0 -26.2 Td
-.5 Tw
() Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
-.5 Tw
(\(6\)) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
-.5 Tw
(Interference with prospective business advan-) Tj
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(tage.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(9) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
-10 -26.2 Td
.5 Tw
([8]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( It immediately should be obvious that Agarwal's fourth) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
2.78 Tw
(cause of action, challenging as insufficient the notice pro-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.11 Tw
(vided in ProMed's letter, cannot survive a motion to dismiss) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.02 Tw
(for failure to state a claim. Because of its valid rejection of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.71 Tw
(contract, ProMed was relieved of its obligations under the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3 Tw
(notice provisions of the agreement. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Pacific Express,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.06 Tw
(Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 780 F.2d at 1486 n.3 \(noting that rejection allows the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.71 Tw
(bankrupt's estate to avoid the requirements of the contract\).) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.2 Td
1.15 Tw
([9]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We are convinced that ProMed's valid rejection of the) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.04 Tw
(Agreement also is fatal to Agarwal's second cause of action,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.84 Tw
(alleging a violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.84 Tw
(809, and his) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.36 Tw
(third cause of action, which alleges a violation of California's) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.07 Tw
(common law right to fair procedure. Like the notice provi-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.05 Tw
(sions of Agarwal's contract, these causes of action concern) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.63 Tw
(primarily the process by which a company decides to dis-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.47 Tw
(charge a physician, not whether a physician may be dis-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.81 Tw
(charged. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Potvin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 997 P.2d) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.66 Tw
(1153, 1158 \(Cal. 2000\) \(when it applies, the right to fair pro-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.25 Tw
(cedure ensures that a decision is ) Tj
(�both substantively rational) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(and procedurally fair) Tj
(�\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Pinsker v. Pac. Coast Soc'y) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.35 Tw
(of Ortho.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 526 P.2d 253, 260 \(Cal. 1974\); Cal. Bus. & Prof.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.78 Tw
(9) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(We do not consider the propriety of dismissing Agarwal's sixth cause) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
2.03 Tw
(of action, which was not discussed in Agarwal's opening brief. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Indep.) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(Towers of Wash. v. Washington) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 350 F.3d 925, 929 \(9th Cir. 2003\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(679) Tj
-233.7579 0 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(N RE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(: P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
39 0 obj
4272
endobj
37 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 38 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 11 11            
41 0 obj
<<
/Length 42 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1 Tw
0 Tc
(Code �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(809.1\(a\) & \(c\) \(entitling certain physicians to written) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(notice and a hearing before they are terminated\). ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.75 Tw
([10]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Section 365\(a\) gives debtors wide latitude in deciding) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.18 Tw
(whether to assume or reject a contract, which is inconsonant) Tj
0 -13 Td
1 Tw
(with the supplementary procedures imposed under California) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(law. Moreover, it would be anomalous for �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.53 Tw
(365\(a\)�a provi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(sion aimed at relieving the debtor of burdensome performance) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(obligations while it is trying to recover financially, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re One-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(cast Media, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 439 F.3d at 563�to force ProMed to pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.16 Tw
(vide sham notices and hearings from which Agarwal could) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(expect no relief. Accordingly, we need not determine whether) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.25 Tw
(Agarwal's second, third, and fourth causes of action pass) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(muster under the Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure. Even) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(assuming Agarwal's allegations were sufficient, he can prove) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.02 Tw
(no set of facts entitling him to the damages he seeks, so dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(missal of these causes of action was proper. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.88 Tw
([11]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The rejection of an executory contract does not, how-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(ever, otherwise affect the parties' substantive rights under the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.49 Tw
(contract or state law. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(In re Onecast Media, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 439 F.3d) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.48 Tw
(at 563 \(citing 3 C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.47 Tw
(OLLIER ON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.48 Tw
( B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.47 Tw
(ANKRUPTCY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
.48 Tw
( �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.48 Tw
(365.09[1] \(Alan N.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.96 Tw
(Resnick & Henry J. Sommer eds., 15th rev. ed. 2005\)\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.57 Tw
(Accordingly, ProMed's rejection of the Agreement did not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.05 Tw
(automatically extinguish Agarwal's other causes of action,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(and it is possible that he has stated a claim that survives under) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.12 Tw
(the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. We examine each) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(in turn. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
(Agarwal's first cause of action alleges retaliatory termina-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(tion in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.11 Tw
(2056, which pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.77 Tw
(vides that physicians cannot suffer ) Tj
(�retaliation . . . [for]) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(advocat[ing] for medically appropriate health care for their) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(patients . . . .) Tj
(� Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(2056\(a\) & \(c\). ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.13 Tw
([12]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In order to state a claim under �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.13 Tw
(2056, Agarwal must) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(first allege that ProMed's ) Tj
(�decision to terminate [his] employ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(ment or other contractual relationship . . . or otherwise penal-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(680) Tj
49.7421 0 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(N RE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(: P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
42 0 obj
4180
endobj
40 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 41 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 12 12            
44 0 obj
<<
/Length 45 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
5.67 Tw
0 Tc
(ize [him was] principally for advocating for medically) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
-1.08 Tw
(appropriate health care . . . .) Tj
(� Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
-1.08 Tw
(2056\(c\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(10) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
.77 Tw
(Agarwal's complaint states, ) Tj
(�The real reason for PROMED's) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.87 Tw
(termination of Dr. Agarwal is that PROMED . . . wish[es] to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.09 Tw
(maximize their profits at the patient's expense . . . . PROMED) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.57 Tw
(. . . perceive[s] Dr. Agarwal as `too expensive' because Dr.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.08 Tw
(Agarwal does not hesitate to order ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(necessary) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and entirely) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.05 Tw
(proper medical tests for his patients, in the best interests of his) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.33 Tw
(patients.) Tj
(� If proven, these allegations match precisely the first) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.42 Tw
(element of a retaliatory termination claim: Agarwal was ter-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.21 Tw
(minated because his ordering medically appropriate health) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.75 Tw
(care made him ) Tj
(�too expensive.) Tj
(� Albeit unartful, these allega-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(tions are sufficient under liberal notice pleading standards. ) Tj
12 -26.8 Td
3.58 Tw
(Under �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.58 Tw
(2056, Agarwal must also allege either that he) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.63 Tw
(appealed ProMed's decision to deny payment for a service or) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.4 Tw
(that he protested a decision, policy, or practice that he ) Tj
(�rea-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.61 Tw
(sonably believe[d] impair[ed his] ability to provide medically) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.64 Tw
(appropriate health care to his . . . patients.) Tj
(� Cal. Bus. & Prof.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.45 Tw
(Code �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.45 Tw
(2056\(b\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(11) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Again, Agarwal's allegations are sufficient.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.6 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(10) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
1 Tw
(Subsection \(c\) provides: ) Tj
8 -16.6 Td
.43 Tw
(The application and rendering by any person of a decision to ter-) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.02 Tw
(minate an employment or other contractual relationship with, or) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.32 Tw
(otherwise penalize, a physician and surgeon principally for advo-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.12 Tw
(cating for medically appropriate health care consistent with that) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
2.3 Tw
(degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.48 Tw
(physicians practicing according to the applicable legal standard) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.03 Tw
(of care violates the public policy of this state. No person shall ter-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.68 Tw
(minate, retaliate against, or otherwise penalize a physician and) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.56 Tw
(surgeon for that advocacy, nor shall any person prohibit, restrict,) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.68 Tw
(or in any way discourage a physician and surgeon from commu-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
3 Tw
(nicating to a patient information in furtherance of medically) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1 Tw
(appropriate health care. ) Tj
-18 -16.5 Td
(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(2056\(c\). ) Tj
10 -14.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(11) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
1 Tw
(In relevant part, subsection \(b\) provides: ) Tj
8 -16.5 Td
.98 Tw
(It is the public policy of the State of California that a physician) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.3 Tw
(and surgeon be encouraged to advocate for medically appropriate) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -276.75 m 300 -276.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(681) Tj
-233.7579 0 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(N RE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(: P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
45 0 obj
4396
endobj
43 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 44 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 13 13            
47 0 obj
<<
/Length 48 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.67 Tw
0 Tc
(The complaint stated that Agarwal ) Tj
(�advocat[ed] for patients) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
4.57 Tw
(and protest[ed] the denials and delays in authorization.) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
3.88 Tw
(Although Agarwal conceded that payment was ultimately) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.75 Tw
(authorized ) Tj
(�[i]n most instances,) Tj
(� nothing in �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.75 Tw
(2056 requires) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
4.81 Tw
(that a physician be ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(prevented ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(from providing medically) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
3.9 Tw
(appropriate health care. Rather, Agarwal must reasonably) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.1 Tw
(believe that ProMed's initial denials ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(impaired) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(i.e.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, damaged,) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
3.04 Tw
(injured, lessened, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( O) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
3 Tw
(XFORD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
3.04 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
3 Tw
(NGLISH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
3.04 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
3 Tw
(ICTIONARY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
3.04 Tw
( \(2d ed.) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.58 Tw
(1989\)�his ability to treat his patients. We must broadly con-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.03 Tw
(strue his statements that he was required to provide ) Tj
(�extensive) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.81 Tw
(oral and written justification) Tj
(� for ) Tj
(�entirely necessary medical) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.92 Tw
(tests and procedures) Tj
(� and that authorization was delayed and) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.22 Tw
(�nearly always initially denied) Tj
(� as alleging just that. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Kha-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.11 Tw
(javi v. Feather River Anesthesia Med. Group) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 100 Cal. Rptr.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.36 Tw
(2d 627, 638 \(Cal. Ct. App. 2000\) \(finding an ) Tj
(�unambiguous) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.55 Tw
(legislative intent to apply the statute broadly to protect physi-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.85 Tw
(cians' exercise of their professional judgment in advocating) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.71 Tw
(for medically appropriate health care) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. at 640 \(deciding) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(that there should be a ) Tj
(�broad interpretation of the statute) Tj
(�\). ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.8 Td
1.7 Tw
([13]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( For these reasons, the bankruptcy court erred in dis-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
2.9 Tw
(missing Agarwal's retaliation claim under Federal Rule of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(Bankruptcy Procedure 7012. ) Tj
12 -26.8 Td
2.14 Tw
(The bankruptcy court also erred in dismissing Agarwal's) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.61 Tw
(fifth cause of action, alleging unfair competition. California's) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
18 -26.6 Td
1.3 Tw
(health care for his or her patients. For purposes of this section,) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
2.58 Tw
(�to advocate for medically appropriate health care) Tj
(� means to) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.46 Tw
(appeal a payor's decision to deny payment for a service pursuant) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.68 Tw
(to the reasonable grievance or appeal procedure established by) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.36 Tw
(a[n] . . . independent practice association . . . or to protest a deci-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.55 Tw
(sion, policy, or practice that the physician, consistent with that) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
2.3 Tw
(degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.48 Tw
(physicians practicing according to the applicable legal standard) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.01 Tw
(of care, reasonably believes impairs the physician's ability to pro-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1 Tw
(vide medically appropriate health care to his or her patients. ) Tj
-18 -16.5 Td
(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(2056\(b\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -358.35 m 300 -358.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(682) Tj
49.7421 0 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(N RE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(: P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
48 0 obj
4590
endobj
46 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 47 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 14 14            
51 0 obj
<<
/Length 52 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.6 Tw
0 Tc
(unfair competition statute prohibits any unfair competition,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.62 Tw
(which means ) Tj
(�any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(or practice.) Tj
(� Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code ��) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(17200, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(et seq.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1 Tw
([14]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Thus, in order to state a claim for unfair competition,) Tj
-12 -13 Td
2.25 Tw
(Agarwal must first allege that ProMed's termination of the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.85 Tw
(Agreement was unlawful, unfair or fraudulent. An unlawful) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.33 Tw
(act is one ) Tj
(�forbidden by law, be it civil or criminal, federal,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.28 Tw
(state, or municipal, statutory, regulatory, or court-made.) Tj
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(Saunders v. Superior Court) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 438, 441 \(Cal.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.57 Tw
(Ct. App. 1994\). Thus, stating a claim for retaliatory) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.12 Tw
(termination�an act forbidden by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.38 Tw
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.38 Tw
(2056�satisfies the requirement that Agarwal alleged an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(unlawful business act or practice. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.17 Tw
(Agarwal also advances an alternate theory of unfair compe-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(tition. He alleges that ProMed's pretextual reason for termi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.75 Tw
(nating the Agreement was ) Tj
(�misleading to the public in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.34 Tw
(general� because, as a result, approximately fifty people) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(believe he is a bad doctor, which is ) Tj
(�entirely false.) Tj
(� Although) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.69 Tw
(such allegations do not state a claim in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(tort) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, as used in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.22 Tw
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.22 Tw
(17200, ) Tj
(�fraudulent) Tj
(� does not refer to the common law tort) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(of fraud. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bank of the W. v. Superior Court) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 833 P.2d 545, 553) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.62 Tw
(\(Cal. 1992\). Rather, Agarwal need allege only that ) Tj
(�members) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(of the public are likely to be deceived) Tj
(� by ProMed's business) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(act or practice. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Chern v. Bank of Am.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 15 Cal. 3d) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(866, 876 \(Cal. 1976\) \(quotation marks omitted\)\). Clearly, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(public is likely to be deceived by statements that are ) Tj
(�entirely) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(false.) Tj
(� ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.7 Tw
(On its face, the unfair ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(competition) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( statute also appears to) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(require that Agarwal allege that he was in competition with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(ProMed. Agarwal does allege he was in competition with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(ProMed, but as a matter of law, we are not convinced that a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(member of an independent practice association may be con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(sidered to be in competition with that independent practice) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(association. We need not resolve our concern here because,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(under the unfair competition statute, ) Tj
(�competition between) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(683) Tj
-233.7579 0 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(N RE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(: P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
52 0 obj
4233
endobj
50 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 51 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 15 15            
54 0 obj
<<
/Length 55 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.84 Tw
0 Tc
(the parties is not a prerequisite to relief. . . . Emphasis is . . .) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.92 Tw
(placed upon the word `unfair' rather than on `competition.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.92 Tw
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
.6 Tw
(Ball v. Am. Trial Lawyers Ass'n) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 92 Cal. Rptr. 228, 303 \(Cal.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.61 Tw
(Ct. App. 1971\) \(internal citations omitted\) \(interpreting virtu-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.75 Tw
(ally identical definition of ) Tj
(�unfair competition) Tj
(� in Cal. Civ.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Code �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(3369\). ) Tj
12 -26.5 Td
.78 Tw
(As the California courts have explained, the unfair compe-) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.05 Tw
(tition statute is not limited to ) Tj
(�conduct that is unfair to com-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.33 Tw
(petitors.� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(People ex rel. Renne v. Servantes) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 103 Cal. Rptr. 2d) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.8 Tw
(870, 881 \(Cal. Ct. App. 2001\) \(citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Barquis v. Merch. Col-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.03 Tw
(lection Ass'n) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 496 P.2d 817 \(Cal. 1972\)\). Indeed, in defining) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.66 Tw
(unfair competition, �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.66 Tw
(17200 refers to only business acts and) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.41 Tw
(practices, not competitive business acts or practices, and the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.63 Tw
(term ) Tj
(�embrac[es] ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(anything) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( that can properly be called a busi-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.83 Tw
(ness practice.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Cel-Tech Comm., Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.06 Tw
(Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 973 P.2d 527, 539 \(Cal. 1999\) \(emphasis added\) \(quoting) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.3 Td
.66 Tw
(Rubin v. Green) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 847 P.2d 1044, 1052 \(Cal. 1993\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cf. ) Tj
(Khoury) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.19 Tw
(v. Maly's of Calif.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 708, 712 \(Cal. Ct. App.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.33 Tw
(1993\) \(sustaining the trial court's demurrer under Cal. Bus. &) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.08 Tw
(Prof. Code �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.08 Tw
(17001 because ) Tj
(�[t]he facts [did] not involve) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.22 Tw
([any] . . . anticompetitive practice . . . because appellant is not) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(in competition with respondent) Tj
(�\). ) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
.96 Tw
(Moreover, at the time Agarwal initiated his adversary pro-) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.1 Tw
(ceeding, the statute gave the right to challenge the unfair busi-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
6.15 Tw
(ness practices to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(any ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(citizen, even if he suffered no) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.53 Tw
(individualized injury. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.53 Tw
(17204) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.96 Tw
(\(2003\) \(authorizing civil action to enforce �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.96 Tw
(17200 by ) Tj
(�any) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2 Tw
(person acting for the interests of itself, its members, or the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.2 Tw
(general public) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also Californians for Disability Rights v.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(Mervyn's, LLC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 39 Cal. 4th 223, 227 \(2006\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(12) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.1 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.57 Tw
(12) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(As a result of an amendment, the statute now provides that ) Tj
(�a private) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.13 Tw
(person has standing to sue only if he or she `has suffered injury in fact and) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.5 Tw
(has lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.5 Tw
(� ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Cali-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.41 Tw
(fornians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 60 \(quoting) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(Prop. 64, �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(3\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -432.85 m 300 -432.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(684) Tj
49.7421 0 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(N RE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(: P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
55 0 obj
4845
endobj
53 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 54 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 16 16            
57 0 obj
<<
/Length 58 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
4.22 Tw
0 Tc
([15]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In light of these policies, we are convinced that) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1 Tw
(competition�as that term is generally understood�is not an) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.55 Tw
(element of a claim under the unfair competition statute. We) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.12 Tw
(can, thus, discern no deficiency in Agarwal's pleading,) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(13) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.38 Tw
(we reverse the bankruptcy court's dismissal of Agarwal's) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(unfair competition claim. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
109.332 -26.7 Td
(CONCLUSION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-97.332 -26.7 Td
(For the foregoing reasons, the district court's decision is ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.7 Td
9.1 Tw
(AFFIRMED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
(in part, ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
(REVERSED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, in part, ) Tj
(and) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(REMANDED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
(Each party shall bear their own costs.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -52 Td
(RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: ) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
.03 Tw
(I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opin-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.83 Tw
(ion holding that ProMed's valid rejection of the Agreement) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5 Tw
(between ProMed and Chandrahas Agarwal constituted a) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(breach of that contract. ) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
2.24 Tw
(The contract between Agarwal and ProMed provided for) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.5 Tw
(non-renewal of the contract if written notice of non-renewal) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.85 Tw
(was given. ProMed complied with the non-renewal provision) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4 Tw
(of the contract, resulting in non-renewal of the contract.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.07 Tw
(ProMed only sought rejection of the contract as a cautionary) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.15 Tw
(measure in response to the filing of an adversary proceeding) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.66 Tw
(by Agarwal. The fact that ProMed filed a superfluous motion) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.4 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.66 Tw
(13) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(California Business & Professional Code �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.66 Tw
(17203 allows a court to) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
1.94 Tw
(enjoin a party from engaging in past behavior that amounted to unfair) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.22 Tw
(competition. Because Agarwal has alleged that members of the public) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.26 Tw
(have been deceived by ProMed's unfair business act or practice, and he) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.25 Tw
(seeks injunctive relief in his Fifth Cause of Action, Agarwal's Fifth Cause) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(of Action states a claim as to which relief can be granted. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -208.15 m 300 -208.15 l s
.5 w 0 -421.05 m 300 -421.05 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(685) Tj
-233.7579 0 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(N RE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(: P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
58 0 obj
3553
endobj
56 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 57 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 17 17            
60 0 obj
<<
/Length 61 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.36 Tw
0 Tc
(to reject a contract that had not been renewed does not sup-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(port a finding of breach.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(686) Tj
49.7421 0 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(N RE) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(: P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMONA) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLEY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROUP) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
(.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
61 0 obj
861
endobj
59 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 60 0 R
>>
endobj
1 0 obj
[ /PDF /Text ]
endobj
62 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
 ]
>>
endobj
63 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Bold
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 139.00
/StemH 69.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 676
/XHeight 461
/Ascent 676
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F1
/BaseFont /Times-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300
250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500
930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778
611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500
333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500
556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400
722 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
667 611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
500 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556
667 500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000
389 1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722
722 722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ]
/Encoding 62 0 R
/FontDescriptor 63 0 R
>>
endobj
64 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
 ]
>>
endobj
65 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Roman
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 84.00
/StemH 42.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 662
/XHeight 450
/Ascent 683
/Descent -217
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F2
/BaseFont /Times-Roman
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300
250 333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444
921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722
556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500
333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500
500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400
667 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611
444 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556
611 500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ]
/Encoding 64 0 R
/FontDescriptor 65 0 R
>>
endobj
66 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 240 /apple ]
>>
endobj
67 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Symbol
/Flags 4
/FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 85.00
/StemH 42.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 0
/XHeight 0
/Ascent 0
/Descent 0
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
8 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F3
/BaseFont /Symbol
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444
549 722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722
768 741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500
500 631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549
549 521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603
400 549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658
823 686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713
768 713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603
494 329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494
790 329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ]
/Encoding 66 0 R
/FontDescriptor 67 0 R
>>
endobj
68 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
 ]
>>
endobj
69 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Italic
/Flags 98
/FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 76.00
/StemH 38.00
/ItalicAngle -15.50
/CapHeight 653
/XHeight 441
/Ascent 683
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F4
/BaseFont /Times-Italic
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300
250 333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500
920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722
611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500
333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500
500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400
667 500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611
611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611
500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500
611 500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
889 667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ]
/Encoding 68 0 R
/FontDescriptor 69 0 R
>>
endobj
70 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
 ]
>>
endobj
71 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Helvetica-Bold
/Flags 32
/FontBBox [ -170 -228 1003 962 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 140.00
/StemH 70.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 718
/XHeight 532
/Ascent 718
/Descent -207
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F5
/BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278
278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 584 584 584 584 584 333 333
278 333 474 556 556 889 722 278 333 333 389 584 278 333 278 278
556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 333 333 584 584 584 611
975 722 722 722 722 667 611 778 722 278 556 722 611 833 722 778
667 778 722 667 611 722 667 944 667 667 611 333 278 333 584 556
278 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 278 556 278 889 611 611
611 611 389 556 333 611 556 778 556 556 500 389 280 389 584 400
722 611 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 278 278 278 722 722
667 667 611 611 611 611 611 611 556 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
556 333 556 556 167 556 556 556 556 238 500 556 333 333 611 611
667 556 556 556 278 667 556 350 278 500 500 556 1000 1000 722 611
611 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 611 333 333 333 333 333 333
1000 722 611 278 278 278 667 556 667 556 611 611 500 737 737 1000
278 1000 278 370 278 278 778 778 611 778 1000 365 778 778 722 722
722 889 667 556 834 278 834 834 278 611 944 611 278 611 611 280 ]
/Encoding 70 0 R
/FontDescriptor 71 0 R
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<<
/Kids [3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 18 0 R 21 0 R 24 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 72 0 R
>>
endobj
30 0 obj
<<
/Kids [27 0 R 31 0 R 34 0 R 37 0 R 40 0 R 43 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 72 0 R
>>
endobj
49 0 obj
<<
/Kids [46 0 R 50 0 R 53 0 R 56 0 R 59 0 R]
/Count 5
/Type /Pages
/Parent 72 0 R
>>
endobj
72 0 obj
<<
/Kids [10 0 R 30 0 R 49 0 R]
/Count 17
/Type /Pages
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
>>
endobj
2 0 obj
<<
/Type /Catalog
/Pages 72 0 R
>>
endobj
73 0 obj
<<
/CreationDate (Tuesday January 16, 2007 07:31:18)          
/Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2)   
/Producer (ECMP5)
>>
endobj
xref
0 74
0000000000 65535 f
0000072523 00000 n
0000085164 00000 n
0000003664 00000 n
0000000044 00000 n
0000003641 00000 n
0000073988 00000 n
0000076640 00000 n
0000078194 00000 n
0000080841 00000 n
0000084715 00000 n
0000005934 00000 n
0000003878 00000 n
0000005910 00000 n
0000010822 00000 n
0000006128 00000 n
0000010798 00000 n
0000083492 00000 n
0000015608 00000 n
0000011039 00000 n
0000015584 00000 n
0000020517 00000 n
0000015825 00000 n
0000020493 00000 n
0000025074 00000 n
0000020734 00000 n
0000025050 00000 n
0000029438 00000 n
0000025279 00000 n
0000029414 00000 n
0000084831 00000 n
0000034381 00000 n
0000029655 00000 n
0000034357 00000 n
0000039028 00000 n
0000034598 00000 n
0000039004 00000 n
0000043604 00000 n
0000039247 00000 n
0000043580 00000 n
0000048088 00000 n
0000043823 00000 n
0000048064 00000 n
0000052788 00000 n
0000048307 00000 n
0000052764 00000 n
0000057682 00000 n
0000053007 00000 n
0000057658 00000 n
0000084948 00000 n
0000062207 00000 n
0000057889 00000 n
0000062183 00000 n
0000067344 00000 n
0000062414 00000 n
0000067320 00000 n
0000071201 00000 n
0000067563 00000 n
0000071177 00000 n
0000072354 00000 n
0000071409 00000 n
0000072331 00000 n
0000072556 00000 n
0000073708 00000 n
0000075208 00000 n
0000076360 00000 n
0000077856 00000 n
0000077928 00000 n
0000079406 00000 n
0000080558 00000 n
0000082056 00000 n
0000083208 00000 n
0000085058 00000 n
0000085220 00000 n
trailer
<<
/Size 74
/Root 2 0 R
/Info 73 0 R
>>
startxref
85357
%%EOF