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), et al.
Defendants
Case No.: 22STCV37929
RESPONSE TO LISA MAGORIEN’S
RESTRAINING ORDER
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ESTHER TENDO ATAM, pro se, and files this response to
Lisa Magorien’s Restraining Order. In response thereof, Plaintiff states as follows:
Plaintiff asserts that contrary to the averments in the restraining order, Lisa who has
exhibited nothing but frivolity as counsel for Defendant SCPMG. She violated her duties as
Attorney (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6103) by misleading the Court (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subd.
(d)) and by committing acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty & corruption (Bus. & Prof. Code, §
6106). First, Lisa has blatantly abused the court’s process. Notably, she has made incessant
attempts to bar Plaintiff from seeking justice. It is Lisa’s covert intention to present Plaintiff as a
vexatious litigant, to ultimately curtail Plaintiff’s right to approach this Honorable Court in
pursuit of legal redress. On or about February 6, 2023, Lisa filed an ex parte application to
dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. She field said ex parte application while ignoring Plaintiff’s
Request for Admission of Facts (hereinafter “RFA”).
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
RESPONSE TO LISA MAGORIEN’S RESTRAINING ORDER
On or about January 3, 2023, Plaintiff sent Defendant SCPMG a Request for Admission
of Facts. At the time of filing this document, Defendant SCPMG has not yet filed any response
to Plaintiff’s RFA. Interestingly, Lisa continues to make other filings in the court, while ignoring
Plaintiff’s RFA. For instance, on or about January 13, 2022, (ten days after Plaintiff filed her
RFA), Lisa filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Consequently, she filed the ex parte
application on February 6 th , all the while ignoring the RFA. It is trite law that as officers of the
court, attorneys are subject to duties of candor, decorum, and respect for the tribunal before
which they appear. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2672 (2013). An attorney’s duty of
candor is so fundamental that a violation of that duty may lead to suspension. In re Gordon, 780
F.3d 156, 161 (2d Cir. 2015). The duty of candor is, if anything, more critical when ex parte
applications are made to a court. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide that "[i]n an
ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer
that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse."
See Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3.3(d) (2016). Lisa is therefore in violation of her duty of
candor to the tribunal, by filing the ex parte application and ignoring Plaintiff’s RFA, when there
was no emergency to justify said application.
Further, Lisa attempts to have Plaintiff classified as a vexatious litigant, while Plaintiff
has only been making attempts to pursue justice. At no point has she made any frivolous filing,
or abused the court process. It is Plaintiff’s contention that Lisa cunningly intends to use all legal
stratagems to alter the court’s perception of Plaintiff, and ultimately issue a decision against her.
It follow’s Lisa is bent to cloud SCPMG’s liability, because she understands how SCPMG is
liable and/or blameworthy as alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.
It can therefore be concluded that Lisa’s efforts are mere distractions, to shift the Court’s
focus from the substance of the case. Plaintiff asserts that the distractions, including the
Restraining Order, are frivolous. A filing is frivolous where it can be said that it indisputably has
no merit, such that any reasonable attorney would agree that it is totally and completely without
merit. Corbett v. Hayward Dodge, Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 915, 922. As a licensed attorney,
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
RESPONSE TO LISA MAGORIEN’S RESTRAINING ORDER
Lisa is aware that her filings have no merit, and that she has no justification or good cause to
have Plaintiff issued the Restraining Order.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Lisa is engaging in gross impunity and abuse of this Honorable
Court, when she makes filings, which in effect seek to alter this Court’s perception of Plaintiff,
and to prevent Plaintiff’s access to justice. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that this Court, in the
interest of justice, denies Lisa Magorien’s Request for Restraining Order. Plaintiff also prays for
any further Order this Court deems just.
Dated: ____________
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
_________________________
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
4
RESPONSE TO LISA MAGORIEN’S RESTRAINING ORDER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], copies of the foregoing document have been
sent to the Defendant in the following address:
Lisa M. Magorien, Esq. (SBN: 259877)
lmagorien@lbbklaw.com
Morgan A. Chase, Esq. (SBN: 333573)
mchase@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: ______________
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
_________________________
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 )