People: F. Scott Page, Partner

Photo of F. Scott Page, Partner

F. Scott Page

Partner

Los Angeles - Century City
Direct: (310) 201-5237
Fax: (310) 201-5219
0

Mr. Page represents management in all areas of employment law, including providing counseling and advice to management on a variety of workplace issues, as well as representing management as a litigator in the defense of wage-hour and discrimination class actions, and individual claims for wrongful termination, defamation, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.  He has successfully tried cases involving these claims, in both state and federal courts, before juries and judges, as well as in cases involving partnership dissolutions, claims of unfair competition, and ERISA disputes.  In addition to over two decades of experience representing health care clients, including hospitals, medical partnerships, and health maintenance organizations in employment matters, Mr. Page has developed a practice representing multiemployer pension and health and welfare funds in a variety of contexts, including advice and litigation, and has represented management trustees in deadlock arbitrations.  Mr. Page has also successfully led clients through a variety of alternate dispute resolution procedures.

Mr. Page represents management in all areas of employment law, including providing counseling and advice to management on a variety of workplace issues, as well as representing management as a litigator in the defense of wage-hour and discrimination class actions, and individual claims for wrongful termination, defamation, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.  He has successfully tried cases involving these claims, in both state and federal courts, before juries and judges, as well as in cases involving partnership dissolutions, claims of unfair competition, and ERISA disputes.  In addition to over two decades of experience representing health care clients, including hospitals, medical partnerships, and health maintenance organizations in employment matters, Mr. Page has developed a practice representing multiemployer pension and health and welfare funds in a variety of contexts, including advice and litigation, and has represented management trustees in deadlock arbitrations.  Mr. Page has also successfully led clients through a variety of alternate dispute resolution procedures.

Education

  • J.D., Boston University School of Law (1982)
    Member and Case and Note Editor for the Boston University International Law Journal
  • B.A., Rutgers University, Rutgers College (1979)
    With high departmental distinction in political science, Henry Rutgers Honors scholar, Phi Beta Kappa

Admissions

  • California

Courts

  • U.S. District Court for the Northern, Eastern, Central and Southern Districts of California
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Affiliations

  • California State Bar
  • American Bar Association (Labor and Litigation sections)
  • Los Angeles County Bar Association (Labor and Litigation sections)

Representative Engagements

Trials and Arbitrations

  • Trustees of the Operating Engineers Trust Funds v. Smith-Emery Company, (United States District Court, Central District of California) (December 2012).  Represented contributing employer in bench trial on claims by four Operating Engineer Trust Funds for ERISA Section 515 and breach of contract claims, based on expansive reading of collective bargaining agreement, seeking to include as covered work on which contributions were due work performed by non-union employees of sister company over a seven year period of time.  (Christina Snyder, Judge)
  • Chad Elsner, M.D. v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (August 2009).  AAA arbitration following successful motion to compel arbitration in United States District Court, Southern District of California, representing medical partnership against claims of USERRA discrimination and retaliation by fellow partner in medical practice, resulting in complete defense ruling.  (John Adler, Arbitrator).
  • Union Trustees of The Rocky Mountain UFCW Unions and Employers Pension Plan v. Employer Trustees of The Rocky Mountain UFCW Unions and Employers Pension Plan (July 2009). Representation of management trustees for two Rocky Mountain states pension plans over deadlocked motions sponsored by union trustees to elect a Section 204 WRERA freeze in funding status, in an attempt to forestall cuts in benefits and other remedial measures under the Pension Protection Act of 2006.  Complete victory for management trustees, rejecting the Section 204 WRERA freeze.  One of the first, if not the very first, arbitration rulings over a WRERA freeze in the country involving a traditional Taft Hartley plan.  See “Pensions: Arbitrator Decides Two Multiemployer Plans Cannot Elect the WRERA Zone Status Freeze,”  Daily Labor Report (BNA) No. 142, at A-5 (July 28, 2009).  (Ira Jaffe, Arbitrator). 
  • Chiboola Malaambo, M.D. v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (June 2009).  Arbitration following successful motion to compel arbitration in Los Angeles County Superior Court, representing medical partnership against claims of breach of partnership agreement, unfair competition, breach of fiduciary duty, resulting in complete defense ruling.  (Retired Justice Edward J. Wallin, Arbitrator). 
  • Rollu Singh Natt, M.D. v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, et al. (January 2009).  Arbitration following successful motion to compel arbitration in Los Angeles County Superior Court, representing medical partnership against claims of discrimination, retaliation, and violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, resulting in complete defense ruling.  (Retired Justice Edward J. Wallin, Arbitrator). 
  • Vita v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (Los Angeles Superior Court, 2002) (jury trial in Los Angeles Superior Court - Central District, and resulting in complete defense verdict against claims of FEHA race discrimination and retaliation (12-0 verdict)).
  • Kaiser Marquardt, Inc. v. The Marquardt Co./The Marquardt Co. v. Kaiser Marquardt, Inc. and Kaiser Aerospace and Electronics Corp. (2000).  Arbitration representing plaintiff asserting claims arising from Asset Purchase Agreement of on-going concern, resulting in successful prosecution of all claims asserted.  (Retired Justice John Zebrowski, Arbitrator).
  • Comley, et al. v. Mission Furniture Company, et al. (Los Angeles County Superior Court, 1992) (jury trial of fraud claims by two plaintiffs regarding sales of business and their employment termination: successful defense)
  • Greene v. McKenzie(Los Angeles County Superior Court, 1990) (jury trial of partnership dispute: successful on all claims and defense of cross-complaint.)
  • M.P.P.I.F. v. Music Design Group (United States District Court, Central District of California, 1989) (court trial of ERISA claims)
  • Faust v. Hilton Hotels, Inc. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 1988) (court trial of Title VII claim)

Published Appellate and Trial Court Decisions

  • Serrano v. Rosenbluth, Inc. 10 Cal.App.4th 1073 (2002) (successful writ application by defendant against plaintiff asserting Business & Professions Code Section 17200 claim, obtaining ruling limiting the kind of plaintiff entitled to assert such a claim)
  • Jerold Friedman v. Southern California Permanente Group, et al. (California Court of Appeals, 2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 39 (2002) (defense against claim of religious discrimination)
  • Truesdell v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, et al., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (C. D. Cal. 2001) (awarding Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel, for asserting frivolous claims)
  • Truesdell v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, et al., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (C. D. Cal. 2001) (granting motion to dismiss LMRA Section 301 claim against employer involving breach of duty of fair representation claims against a union); affirmed in part and remanded in part for further consideration, 293 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2002).
  • Owen and Hutchins v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirmance of summary judgment of race discrimination and race harassment claims brought by two former employees)
  • Strother v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, et al., 79 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1996) (partial affirmance of summary judgment on various claims brought by a partner against medical partnership for employment discrimination, violation of civil rights, violation of the California Unruh Act among others)
  • Cantu v.  Resolution Trust Corporation, 4 Cal.App.4th 857 (1992) (affirming dismissal of malicious prosecution action brought against savings and loan)
  • La Barber v. Gould, Inc., 2I.E.R. Cases 433 (C.D. Cal. 1987) (summary judgment granted to employer in wrongful termination litigation)

Unpublished Appellate Decisions

  • Tenet 1500 San Pedro, Inc. (USC University Hospital) v. Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union Welfare Fund (Second Appellate District, 2013) (2013 WL 75056) (successful defense of summary judgment in litigation asserted by hospital provider against health and welfare benefit fund, where claim was based on allegations of misrepresentation, implied contract, and a post-discharge breach of letter of understanding.)
  • Bino v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (California Court of Appeals, 2009) (affirming summary judgment based on statute of limitations against plaintiff who timely filed DFEH charge but waited until after union decided to not take her concurrently-filed union grievance to arbitration to file civil FEHA complaint, more than one  year after right to sue letter issued.  No tolling permitted due to union grievance.)
  • Imperato v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (California Court of Appeals, 2007) (successful defense of summary judgment against partner in medical partnership who claimed, among other things, that a mandatory retirement provision constituted actionable age discrimination.)
  • Daily v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (California Court of Appeals, 2006) (successful defense of lower court order denying attorneys’ fees award to wrongful termination plaintiff.)
  • Flores v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. (California Court of Appeals, 2005) (successful defense of summary judgment granted against alter ego allegations in employment litigation.)
  • Nakahee v. Kaiser (California Court of Appeals, 2004) (successful defense of summary judgment of FEHA claims.)
  • Monserrat Armedilla v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (California Court of Appeals, 2002)(successful defense against claim of age and sex discrimination.)
  • Epstein v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group(Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1998) (successful defense of summary judgment of FEHA claims.)
  • Jalakh v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.(Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1997) (successful defense of employment contract and tort claims.)
  • Smith v. Kaiser Permanente(California Court of Appeals, 1997) (FEHA claims.)
  • Jacobs v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group(California Court of Appeals, 1997) (successful defense of summary judgment of FEHA claims.)
  • LaBarber v. Gould, Inc.(Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1989) (successful defense of summary judgment in wrongful termination action.

Selected Class Actions

  • Torres, et al. v. San Joaquin Community Hospital (JAMS Arbitration, 2011).  Class action in which a putative plaintiff class of represent all non-nurse, non-exempt employees employed at a hospital assert claims for failure to provide meal periods or premium payments in lieu of missed meal periods; failure to pay overtime due to allegedly improper alternative workweek schedules pursuant to the Labor Code; failure to pay overtime in accordance with alternative workweek schedule contracts; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to pay wages and overtime for pre- or post-shift staff meetings or non-productive, training, or orientation time; failure to pay overtime for certain shifts that included time worked on two workdays; and unfair competition. 
  •  Hulsey, et al. v. San Joaquin Community Hospital (JAMS Arbitration, 2011).  Class action related to the Torres litigation noted above in which the same claims are asserted, and the same remedies sought, by a putative class of all nursing, non-exempt employees. 
  • Duke et al. v. Adventist Health Clearlake Hospital(Sacramento County Superior Court, 2010).  Class action asserting claims that putative class was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked, were not provided meal and rest breaks in accordance with California law, did not receive compliant wage statements, and were not paid all final wages due at the time of termination.  Complaint seeks unpaid overtime and premium pay for missed meal and rest breaks, waiting time penalties, other penalties and attorneys’ fees, as well as relief under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.
  • Chambers, et al. v. White Memorial Medical Center, Glendale Adventist Medical Center(Los Angeles County Superior Court, 2009).  Class action asserting claims arising from alleged failure to properly pay clinical and ancillary service employees in hospital setting wages, including overtime; to correctly calculate the regular rate of pay; to provide meal and rest breaks; to properly compensate certain class members for “on-call time;” to accurately itemize wage statements, and to comply with the California Labor Code, particularly with respect to the alleged failure to adequately schedule the shifts of hospital staff.  Claims included an alleged violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  • Washington, et al. v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (Los Angeles County Superior Court, 2009). Class action asserting claims against hospital for a wide range of wage-hour violations, including failure to provide meal and rest periods, to pay wages upon ending employment, to pay overtime, and failure to keep accurate payroll records.  Complaint also alleged a cause of action based on PAGA arising from these alleged violations, and sought relief for such under Cal. Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 as well.