Esther Tendo Atam
13621 Arcturus Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
July ____, 2023
Hon. __________
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Re: REQUEST TO REVIEW PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
(Esther Tendo Atam v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG), et al.)
Dear Hon. _____________,
I am the Petitioner in the referenced case. This letter serves as my formal request to you to review my Petition for Writ of Mandate, which was denied by the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District.
I am a victim of abuse of the judicial process by the Respondents. First, Kaiser (SCPMG) misrepresented facts by arguing that I was not their employee. It is on this ground that said Respondent moved the Court to grant Summary Judgment and dismiss my case. Judge Kleifield, the presiding judge, granted Kaiser’s motion for summary judgment. This was an erroneous conclusion by Judge Kleifield based on the dishonesty of Kaiser. I was duly employed by Kaiser, and have documentary proof of the same. Records from Kaiser show clearly that I was their employee. The respondent’s lies also led the Court to place me on the vexatious litigants list.
The move to place me on the vexatious litigants list was to bar me from having my case decided on its merits. It is the intent of the respondents to place as many procedural barriers as possible, to ensure the case does not go to full trial, which I am certain would end in my favor.
Next, my case is pending dismissal before the trial court, based on an error committed by Michael Small, the Trial Court judge. The respondent had filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for the posting of security. In said motion, the respondent cited Code of Civil Procedure Section 391.3. However, when making its decision on the motion, the Court rested its conclusion on section 391.1.
Your Honor, Code of Civil Procedure Section 391.3 provides for an Order requiring plaintiffs to furnish security; order dismissing litigation. Further, Code of civ code 391.3 (b) is an order not a request, to dismiss the case; while 391.3 (a) is an order, not request, to furnish security. On the other hand, Section 391.1 provides for a Motion for order requiring plaintiff furnish security or dismissal of litigation. It follows; because no noticed motion pursuant to 391.1 was ever filed, Judge Small cannot rest his conclusion on a noticed motion 391.1, that was never filed. Subsequently, Judge Small cannot write any orders pursuant to 391.3 (b), or 391.3 (a), nor can he dismiss the litigation pursuant to 391.4 as a result of “failure to post security”. Further, your Honor, even if Kaiser were to bring a noticed motion pursuant to 391.1, the judge will have to write an order pursuant to 391.3 (b) or 391.3 (a) or 391.4.
Further, your Honor, the Trial Court’s reliance on Section 391.1 casts doubt to the impartiality of the Judge. The Judge appears to take up the position of a litigant, which is a blatant violation of my due process right to a fair trial.
In light of the foregoing, I humbly request your Honorable Office to review my writs, in the interest of justice. Your Honor, this is my last resort in my pursuit of justice. Accordingly, with utmost deference, I probe the issues raised in my writ, and issue any and all appropriate remedies thereof.
Yours Sincerely,
_________________
Esther 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 )