REBUTTAL TO NAMING PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Plaintiff

vs.

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, ET AL.,

Defendants

Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Michael Small, Department 57

REBUTTAL TO NAMING PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

“The language of [the vexatious litigant] statute leaves little room for interpretation. The defendant who moves for security must prove the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant.” See Camerado Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.App.4th 838, 842 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). No evidence has been adduced in this case, to prove that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. Plaintiff maintains that in the past seven years, she has never commenced any actions that have been determined against her.

Plaintiff has also never delayed any action for at least two years.

(i) The validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or

Code of civil procedure section 437 C (C) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is not triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4^th 1110, 1119).

On 07/14/2022, Judge Kleifield concluded that Kaiser demonstrated by competent evidence that plaintiff was not her employee as matter of law. The Judge then granted Kaiser’s motion for summary judgment. This was an erroneous conclusion by Judge Kleifield based on the dishonesty of Kaiser, claiming Plaintiff was not her employee. Plaintiff was in fact employed by Kaiser. Please see fraudulent RN records produced by Kaiser on March 17th, 2023. Also see Kaisers denial for medical leave, January 29, 2021.

Besides, Lisa Magorien (Respondent’s counsel) stated in her declaration on March 2022 that Petitioner had filed the case against the correct party. The Court failed to acknowledge this fact, and went ahead to side with Respondent in their incessant frivolous attempts to prevent Petitioner from even amending her Complaint just to ensure that her case is heard.

It is Plaintiff’s understanding that a contract of employment is a contract by which one, who is the employer, engages another, who is the employee, to do something for the benefit of the employer or a third person. Here, SCPMG is a Southern Californian based health care provider that employs nurses, 25 doctors and other health care specialists that provide services to patients at Kaiser foundations 26 hospitals, a not-for-profit hospital.

A request for RN records on March 14, 2023, made to Kaiser resulted in the production of fraudulent RN records March 17, 2023.

The foregoing evidences Kaiser’s fraud on the court. “Fraud is extrinsic where the defrauded party was deprived of the opportunity to present his or her claim or defense to the court, that is, where he or she was kept in ignorance or in some other manner, other than from his or her own conduct, fraudulently prevented from fully participating in the proceeding.” See Jordan v. O’Connor Hosp., H038107, 6 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 27, 2013).

As Petitioner has already demonstrated above, Kaiser has fraudulently denied Plaintiff the opportunity to present her claims to the court. Kaiser has engaged in lies, and has made procedural barriers to prevent the case being heard on its merits.

A motion for summary judgment should be granted if no triable issue exists as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); see also Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1002-1003). A genuine issue of material fact exists if a rational trier of fact, considering the record as a whole, could find for the…genuine issue of material fact. See Critzer v. Enos, 187 Cal.App.4th 1242, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 203 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).

Plaintiff asserts that the judge failed to consider the fact that Plaintiff’s complaint contained factual assertions on how she was harmed by the Defendants. Plaintiff went ahead to establish valid causes of action based on the said facts. The complaint therefore raised issues of material fact. It follows; the Court never gave regard to the merits of the case, causes of action, controversy, and issues of fact or law.

“Frivolous” is defined as “totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5(b)(2)). 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.

All filings that Plaintiff has ever made in the instant case have been purposeful, in pursuit of justice for the Plaintiff. At no point has Plaintiff ever intended to oppress the Defendants, or to subject them to harassment. Instead, Plaintiff has made meritorious filings either in response to the Defendant’s filings, or seeking specific reliefs from the court.  EXHIBIT: See Douglas declaration.