Whether a physician serving on a medical staff peer review committee can be held liable for an adverse employment action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 based on committee votes that allegedly violated a healthcare professional's First Amendment rights

No question identified. : 2. This case involves exceptionally important legal questions concerning the standards for qualified immunity, clearly-established law, and an “adverse employment action” on a claim of First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Applicants are physicians employed by the County of Los Angeles and were voting members of a peer review committee of County-owned Harbor-UCLA Medical Center’s medical staff. Respondent was formerly employed by the County at Harbor-UCLA as a vascular surgeon. In response to allegations that Respondent engaged in unprofessional workplace conduct, the committee (including Dr. Putnam and Dr. de Virgilio) voted to direct a focused professional performance evaluation of Respondent, which was conducted by non-parties to this litigation, and resulted in unanimous findings that Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct that negatively impacted patient care and healthcare professionals. The committee (including Dr. Putnam, Dr. Vintch, and Dr. Lewis) voted to address these findings by recommending Respondent agree to a behavioral contract, or alternatively recommending revocation of his clinical privileges subject to a right of appeal by a neutral judicial review committee. 3. The Ninth Circuit panel denied Applicants qualified immunity on Respondent’s retaliation claim, and found as a matter of clearly-established law that Applicants may be personally liable for adverse employment actions based solely on their committee votes concerning Respondent. The panel relied on the broad, general proposition that anyone who “causes” a constitutional deprivation may be liable, not only by personal participation, but also by “setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause ... injury.” Dahlia v. Rodriguez, 735 F.3d 1060, 1078 n.22 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), cert. denied sub nom. City of Burbank v. Dahlia, 571 U.S. 1198 (2014). The panel decision conflicts with precedents of this Court which require that clearlyestablished law “be particularized to the facts of the case,” rather than “alleging violation of extremely abstract rights.” White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 79 (2017) (per curiam) (cleaned up). Contrary to this Court’s precedent, the panel failed to “identify a case” where a public official “acting under similar circumstances” as any Applicant “was held to have violated” the Constitution. Id. at 79-80. 4. Since the August 3, 2023 order, undersigned counsel has been heavily engaged in other matters, including drafting an appellant’s reply brief in Mayo v. Discovery Health Services, Inc., No. D081118 (Cal. App.); drafting a respondents’ brief to the California Court of Appeal in Arellano v. Archdiocese of Los Angeles, et al., No. B322877 (Cal. App.); drafting an appellant’s opening brief in Simers v. Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC, No. B323715 (Cal. App.); drafting a petition for writ of mandate/prohibition in Los Angeles Unified School District v. Superior Court (Cal. App., case no. pending; Cal. Super. No. BC635349); drafting a motion for summary judgment in Heard v. Molson Coors Beverage Co. USA, LLC, No. 20STCV46134 (Cal. Super.); drafting a reply memorandum in support of a motion for summary adjudication and giving oral argument on the motion in Shannon v. Bernie 2020, Inc., et al., No. 20VECV00749 (Cal. Super.); and drafting a demurrer to the complaint in Ryan v. Putnam, et al., No. 23STCV15493 (Cal. Super.), before it was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, Dr. Ryan (Respondent herein), on October 13, 2023. All of these matters involve deadlines earlier than the current November 1, 2023 deadline to file Applicants’ petition for certiorari. In addition, because Applicants are being sued for actions in the scope of their County employment, the County’s governing body (the Board of Supervisors) still must approve the filing of a certiorari petition. 5. Applicants thus respectfully request a 20-day extension for co