2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
Esther Tendo Atam
13621 Arcturus Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
Natashchan1@yahoo.com
Plaintiff in Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ESTHER TENDO ATAM,
Plaintiff
vs.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE
MEDICAL GROUP (SCPMG), A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL., et
al.
Defendants
Case No.: 22STCV37929
NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
JUDGE
Judge: Elaine Lu
Dpt.: 26
Hearing Date:
TO THE SUPERIOR COURT, TO DEFENDANTS, AND TO THEIR
ATTORNEYS OF RECORD AND TO HON. ELAINE LU:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on ________________________ at _________.M.,
or as soon after that as the matter can be heard, in Dept. 26 of the above-entitled Court located at
111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Plaintiff, Esther Tendo Atam (“Plaintiff”), will
move the Court to Disqualify the presiding Judge Hon. Elaine Lu, pursuant to Cal. Code Civ.
Proc. § 170.1, based on the Judge’s bias.
The motion will be based on this Notice of Motion, the Motion itself and the averments
therein, on any records and files already filed in this case, and on such evidence as may be
presented at the hearing of the motion.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
Dated: ____________
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Esther Tendo Atam
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
Esther Tendo Atam
13621 Arcturus Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
Natashchan1@yahoo.com
Plaintiff in Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ESTHER TENDO ATAM,
Plaintiff
vs.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE
MEDICAL GROUP (SCPMG), A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL., et
al.
Defendants
Case No.: 22STCV37929
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
Judge: Elaine Lu
Dpt.: 26
Hearing Date:
COMES NOW, Plaintiff ESTHER TENDO ATAM, pro se, and files this Motion to
Disqualify the Judge pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 170.1. In support thereof, Plaintiff states
as follows:
i. Legal standard
A judge shall be disqualified if "[a] person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a
doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial." See Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd.
(a)(6)(A)(iii).
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that "the right to an impartial judge [is] among
those 'constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as
harmless error.'" See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 (1967).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
ii. Judge Elaine Lu is biased
Canon 3 provides that a Judge shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially,
Competently, and Diligently. Notably, “[a] judge shall be faithful to the law regardless of
partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism, and shall maintain professional competence
in the law.” Canon 3B(2).
Further, “[a] judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.” Canon 3B(5).
Accordingly, “[a] judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, engage in speech,
gestures, or other conduct that would reasonably be perceived as (a) bias, prejudice, or
harassment…” Id.
Canon 3B(7) also provides that “[a] judge shall accord to every person who has a legal
interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law.”
Canon 3B(8) further buttresses the foregoing by providing that “[a] judge shall dispose of all
judicial matters fairly, promptly, and efficiently. A judge shall manage the courtroom in a
manner that provides all litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly adjudicated in
accordance with the law.” The Advisory Committee’s Commentary on Canon 3B(8) specifies
that “the obligation of a judge to dispose of matters promptly and efficiently must not take
precedence over the judge's obligation to dispose of the matters fairly and with patience.”
(Emphasis added).
Some of the Judge’s administrative responsibilities include “diligently discharge the
judge's administrative responsibilities impartially, on the basis of merit, without bias or
prejudice, free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
integrity of the judiciary.” Canon 3C(1).
a. The Judge showed bias when she closed Plaintiff’s case
On March 17, 2023, the Judge issued a Minute Order, which assigned Plaintiff’s instant
case to Judge Michael Small in 21STCV41538, which is Plaintiff’s related case at Department
57. The order further put off all future hearings off-calendar.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
First, Plaintiff asserts that there is colluding between Judge Elaine Lu and Michael Small
at Department 57. Plaintiff has already raised concerns over Judge Michael Small’s bias, and has
already filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Small. In her motion to disqualify Judge Small,
Plaintiff alleged how inter alia, the judge wrongly declared Plaintiff’s motion as frivolous,
deemed Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, erroneously held that the matter was case dissolved without
considering its merits, and that there were pending hearings scheduled in the court docket, the
Judge made threats to fine Plaintiff thousands of dollars if he continued to pursue her case, and
failed to sanction the Defendants in that case, for abusing the discovery process by failing to
respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
It is therefore absurd for Judge Lu to move this case to a biased Court, as already stated
above. Besides, Judge Lu instructed both plaintiff and defendants to file notice of related case on
all cases resulting from the instant complaint. Immediately after the notice was filed, Judge Lu
closed the case despite the fact that there were about three pending hearings on April 10, 2023
(hearing to show cause, case management conference, a hearing on the motion to deem facts
admitted, and a motion to strike affirmative defense). At the moment, the Court has scheduled a
Case Review Hearing for April 11, 2023, and has removed the said April 10, 2023 hearings. This
decision to remove the April 10, 2023 hearings has rendered ineffective all of Plaintiff’s
Subpoenas.
Judge Lu also stayed discovery and never found defendant in abuse of the discovery
process by failing to respond to Plaintiff’s request for admission and other interrogatories.
Plaintiff had also subpoenaed individuals to give testimony on pertinent facts that are central to
the case, such as the psychologist who treated Plaintiff. Said psychologist was subpoenaed to
appear on April 10, 2023, to testify that she cleared Plaintiff for work and that the clearance note
was sent by Acaicia, directly to Kaiser. Sadly, following Plaintiff’s receipt of the Minute Order,
Plaintiff has had to send a letter to the psychologist letting her know that the hearing for April
10 th is cancelled by way of fraud and illegal activity.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
Judge Lu also decided to send this case to Department 57, yet she knows that the case in
Department 57 has been deemed disposed. This therefore shows how the Judges in both cases are
driven by hideous intent to make sure Plaintiff’s case is thrown out of the courts, and that
Plaintiff never gets her day in court.
Next, putting off this case and combining it with 21STCV41538 would only make it
impossible for Plaintiff to further her claims against the instant Defendants. It is notable that the
two cases have different parties. Besides, the Court in 21STCV41538 already denied Plaintiff her
Right to Amend her Complaint to correct the Defendant’s name. Therefore, the Court would not
allow Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint to include said Defendants.
It is therefore evident that there is a covert plan to block every avenue that would have
Plaintiff provide and/or obtain facts that would show the Defendants’ blameworthy conduct.
Putting off this case would negate all of Plaintiff’s efforts to shed light on the truth in the case.
Notably, Plaintiff has diligently filed motions, depositions, and discovery requests. It should also
be noted that Plaintiff also took her time and financial resources to prepare each of her filings, in
the hope of building a successful and water tight case against Defendants.
In light of the foregoing, it is evident that Judge Elaine’s Minute Order is a misuse and/or
misapplication of Rule 3.300, to curtail Plaintiff’s right(s) to access justice and seek legal
redress.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ESTHER TENDO ATAM respectfully requests that the Court
grants this Motion to Disqualify Judge Elaine Lu as requested herein.
Dated: ________________
ESTHER ATAM
______________________________
ESTHER TENDO ATAM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on _________, copies of the foregoing document have been served
upon the Defendant(s) in this case by personal delivery to his or her office at the following
address:
Lisa M. Magorien, Esq. (SBN: 259877)
lmagorien@lbbklaw.com
LAGASSE BRANCH BELL + KINKEAD LLP
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 950
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 345-5080
Facsimile: (858) 345-5025.
Attorney for Defendant
DATED: ______________
ESTHER ATAM
______________________________
ESTHER TENDO ATAM
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )