XXX
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Plaintiff in Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF XXX
FOR THE COUNTY OF XXX
XXX,
Plaintiff
v.
XXX MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
PRESBYTERIAN; and XXX,
Defendants
Case No.: XXX
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S UNTIMELY
RESPONSE TO ITS OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, XXX, pro se, and files this Response to
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Untimely Response to its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. In support of this Response, Plaintiff states as follows:
ISSUE 1: Plaintiff’s Motion is timely; and changes the Court’s ruling
It is trite law that Courts will grant a Motion for Summary judgment if the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(c); see also
XXX (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 826, 847.
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 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S UNTIMELY RESPONSE TO
ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff’s undisputed material facts and
Supporting Evidence
Defendant’s Response and Supporting
Evidence
1. Plaintiff filed an action against Hoag
Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (hereinafter
"Hoag Hospital") and Herbert Conrad on or
about January 25, 2022. In the Complaint,
Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were
blameworthy for negligence, malicious
prosecution, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. (Plaintiff’s Complaint, Ex.
A)
2. Summons was also served on Hoag Hospital
and Herbert Conrad on Feb 2, 2022. The
Defendants had 30 days to respond according
to the law. (Plaintiff’s Complaint and
Summons, Ex. A)
3. On or about March 8, 2022, Defendant Hoag
Memorial Hospital Presbyterian filed an
Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Hoag
Hospital’s Answer, Ex. B)
4. Hoag Hospital’s Answer was filed beyond
the thirty days’ time limit required under the
law. This Defendant’s conduct was a blatant
violation of Rule 3.110(d), which provides that
responsive pleadings must be filed within
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 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S UNTIMELY RESPONSE TO
ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
thirty (30) days of the filing of a Complaint, or
within a 15-day extension as stipulated by the
parties to the case.
5. In the Judge’s tentative ruling, the Judge
only noted that Plaintiff had prematurely filed
the motion “only 8 days after Defendant Hoag
answered.” (The Tentative Order, Ex. C)
6. In the Tentative Ruling, the Judge did not
notice that the Defendant had filed their answer
beyond the statutorily allowed time limit of
thirty (30) days. Contrary to the Judge’s
statement, the Motion for Summary Judgment
was filed eight days after the Defendant’s
untimely answer, and not eight days after
initial services. The parties had not stipulated
that the Defendant could file the responsive
pleading any time after the thirty days. (The
Tentative Order, Ex. C)
7. At the time Plaintiff filed the motion for
summary judgment, Defendant Herbert Conrad
had not been served because this Defendant
intentionally hid his identity to avoid
Defending the case. (Plaintiff’s Motion for
Sanctions, Ex. D).
.
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 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S UNTIMELY RESPONSE TO
ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ISSUE 2: There was evidence in support of Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment
The court may take judicial notice pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code § 452(h), of: “Facts and
propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate
determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.”
Plaintiff’s undisputed material facts and
Supporting Evidence
Defendant’s Response and Supporting
Evidence
1. The Court was aware that the Defendants
had not filed any response to the Plaintiff’s
Complaint within the required timeline.
(Docket statement, Ex. E)
2. Defendant Hoag Hospital filed their answer
on March 8, 2022, which is beyond the thirty
days requirement. (Hoag Hospital’s Answer,
Ex. B)
3. Herbert Conrad, the second Defendant, had
not filed any response at the time that Plaintiff
filed the motion for summary judgment.
(Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, Ex. D).
4. Plaintiff had filed an Affidavit of Fee
Schedule, at the time the motion for summary
judgment was filed. (Affidavit of Fee
Schedule, Ex. E)
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
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S UNTIMELY RESPONSE TO
ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Dated: _________________
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
_________________________
XXX
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
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S UNTIMELY RESPONSE TO
ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
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:
XXX
DATED: ______________
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
_________________________
XXX
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 )