AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DISMISS

mukiialice64
others
March 4, 2024

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

 

 

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DISMISS

 

 

 

 

I, ESTHER TENDO ATAM, declare that:

  1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-titled matter.
  2. I am an adult of sound mind, hence capable of making this declaration.
  3. I make this Affidavit in support of my Opposition to Dismiss.

The discovery process has been abused, to my detriment

  1. Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2025.420, the court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. “One of the powers which has always been recognized as inherent in courts, which are protected in their existence, their powers and jurisdiction by constitutional provisions, has been the right to control its order of business and to so conduct the same that the rights of all suitors before them might be safeguarded.” Rice v. Superior Court (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 81, 90. “We have often recognized the ‘inherent powers of the court … to insure the orderly administration of justice.”’ Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 257, quoting Hays v. Superior Court (1940) 16 Cal.2d 260, 264.
  2. This Court ought to protect me from the blatant abuse of the discovery process in this case. First, I mailed a Request for Admission to Defendants on March 28, 2023. The RFA was delivered on March 31, 2023 (See Proof of Service). Therefore, a response was due by April 31, 2023.
  3. Next, I mailed out interrogatories to Defendants on March 28, 2023. The interrogatories was delivered March 31, 2023 (see Proof of Service). Therefore, a response was due by April 31, 2023. I never received any response to the interrogatories.
  4. I also requested for RN records to Kaiser National HR services on March 28, 2023 (see Fax Form 2810). A response was due by March 31, 2023, yet Kaiser failed to respond to this request. The first request for records on March 17, 2023, resulted in the production of fraudulent RN records (see RN records).
  5. Kaiser failed to respond to Request for Admission that was due January 9, 2023.
  6. In addition to the foregoing, Judge Elaine Lu stayed discovery during the hearing held on February 16, 2023. Staying the discovery process is unfair to me since the information requested in the discovery would provide pertinent facts and/or evidence, which would establish my claims against the Defendants. Also, failure of Judge Lu to find Defendants in abuse of the discovery process shows how Judge Lu is biased.

The Court unjustly removed upcoming hearings

  1. I am facing a threat of all future hearings being put off-calendar. The Minute Order that was issued by this court has the effect of putting off all future hearings off-calendar. The following pending upcoming hearings were therefore struck off: hearing to show cause, case management conference, status conference, motion to strike affirmative defense, and motion to deem facts admitted. It is notable that I had already made filings with respect to each hearing. my good faith efforts would therefore go to the drain in the event this Court upholds its decision to strike off the hearings.

Judge Elaine Lu is colluding with Judge Small

  1. Judge Elaine Lu colludes with Judge Michael Small at Department 57, to further curtail my rights. For instance, the Case Management Statement filed in Departments 26 and 57 in anticipation of the Case Management hearing on March 28, 2023, clearly presented the fraudulent RN records produced by Kasier. Judge Small failed to acknowledge this in his Minute Order on March 28, 2023. Then on March 29, 2023, Judge Small again vacated the upcoming hearing for sanctions in Department 26. He replaced that hearing date with the court’s own motion for dismissal. Judge Small also vacated all pending Reservation Ids already reserved by me and not even filed with the court. This included Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 26, Motion to Further Compel Discovery, and Motion to Disqualify Elaine Lu.
  2. It is also notable that I have already raised concerns over Judge Michael Small’s bias, and has already filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Small. In my motion to disqualify Judge Small, I alleged how inter alia, the judge wrongly declared my motion as frivolous, deemed me 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 me thousands of dollars if I continued to pursue my case, and failed to sanction the Defendants in that case, for abusing the discovery process by failing to respond to my discovery requests.

I am not a vexatious litigant, and only seek to find justice

  1. I am not vexatious and have never made any frivolous application in Court. By filing this Complaint, I am only seeking to pursue justice for the wrongs that have been done to me by the Defendants. Unfortunately, in my pursuit of justice, I have been subjected to fraud, even from my former attorneys. Below, I will outline the background to the filing of this case, which will explain why I filed this case in the first place.
  2. I procured the services of attorney Gary Carlin to represent me in the instant case, which was filed on November 10, 2021. Attorney Carlin named Kaiser Foundation Hospitals as the corporate Defendant in the case, disregarding my attached W2s and wage statements that named the correct Defendant: Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG). I was still confused as to why Gary put KFH in the complaint. I was still under the impression that perhaps he knew better and researched how to properly address the right name for the lawsuit.
  3. Having not been satisfied with Gary Carlin’s representation, I substituted the attorney by filing form MC-050 (Substitution of Attorney-Civil) on or about December 22, 2021. Notably, Gary wrote an email to my indicating that his office would send me a substitution of attorney form, which would require two signatures from her. Consequently, Gary sent over the substitution of attorney Form MC-050, which I duly signed. However, on February 15, 2022, Gary Carlin filed Form MC-050 “Substitution of Attorney” form. The form had a forged signature.
  4. I also noticed that Gary had forged the party’s Retainer Agreement. The forged Agreement stated that I had hired Gary for “Employment/Labor Law Issues Re Kaiser”. Not only was this not my handwriting, it contradicted what I initially stated as the correct name for the Defendant.
  5. Gary was in violation of Penal Code 470 PC, which is the California statute that defines the crime of forgery. A person commits this offense when he falsifies a signature or fraudulently alters certain documents.
  6. After I terminated the services of Gary Carlin, I procured the services of attorney Brennan M. Hershey through an agreement entered on or about December 21, 2021. The Retainer Agreement expressly stated that I hired Hershey to prosecute my action arising out of my employment with SCPMG.
  7. On March 28, 2022, Hershey filed a Case Management Statement, where he identified the Defendant as SCPMG. Hershey was later relieved as my counsel vide a Court Order issued granting his motion to be relieved as counsel. In the motion, Hershey argued that he withdrew because I had sent threats to the Defendants. Hershey’s averments were not true. The attorney was relived after I expressed my concerns on effective representation.
  8. Long after Gary’s representation had been terminated, Gary still went ahead to file a Case Management Statement for me on September 14, 2022, without my knowledge or consent. I then received a communication from Gary’s office that the Case Management Conference was sent mistakenly. After filing the CMS, Gary went ahead to give Defendant’s Counsel notice of the accidental filing. Gary never gave such a notice to Plaintiff. This action by Gary further shows their sinister motive to interfere with my case and thwart my access to justice.
  9. The Attorneys were aware of the error in the naming of the Defendant. As stated above, in my communication with Gary, I had attached W2s and wage statements that named the correct Defendant. Also, on December 21, 2021, Gary Carlin wrote an email to my titled “TAM V. SCPMG”. In the email, Gary further referred to the Defendant expressly as SCPMG.
  10. Further, I confronted Gary Carlin via email on October 28, 2022, with the fact that Gary had entered the wrong name of the Defendant and that he had forged my handwriting in the Retainer Agreement. Gary responded to my email and stated that the handwriting on the Retainer was most likely his handwriting. This amounts to a plain admission of forgery by Gary.
  11. On September 22, 2022, Gary filed a declaration regarding mistakes that do not constitute fraud. In the declaration, Gary failed to mention anything about his failure to enter the correct Defendant’s name in the caption. He only excused himself for mistakenly filing my Case Management Conference yet his services were already terminated. It is notable that Gary states that he has been licensed since January 15, 1970. It is therefore not expected for an attorney of such experience to make such mistakes. Clearly, Gary knew what he was doing.
  12. Attorney Carlin never bothered to correct his significant error of naming the incorrect entity. Gary Carlin further failed to inform me that Defendant’s counsel, Lisa Magorien, had informed him of the error. In fact, I first learned that the incorrect Defendant was named in the complaint, when I opposed Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on or about May 9, 2022.
  13. While retaining both Gary and Hershey Brennan, I was still under the impression that perhaps they knew better and researched how to properly address the right name for the lawsuit. It is for this reason that I relied on the representations of the attorneys, to my detriment. I issued subpoenas to Gary Carlin and Hershey Brennan to Prove that they committed the acts of concealment/fraudulent/intentional misrepresentation, in my case, which led to me being placed on the vexatious litigants list. Gary Carlin had an opportunity to include this in his declaration filed September 22, 2022, but he did not.
  14. It is notable that when representing Plaintiff, both attorneys never notified the Court that the wrong name of the Defendant was stated in the caption of the case. After terminating their representation of Plaintiff, my Complaint would later be challenged by Defendant’s counsel, Lisa Magorien. Notably, Lisa Magorien filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 21, 2022 alleging inter alia, that I had named the wrong Defendant as party in the Complaint. I only realized that there was an issue with the Defendant’s name when I received the Motion for Summary Judgment form Lisa Magorien. The foregoing marked the genesis of my struggles in Court, which would later end up with my case being disposed and me being termed a vexatious litigant.
  15. I therefore filed this Complaint because I was not allowed to file any Amended Complaint in the said related case. Defendant’s counsel vehemently opposed every step I took to amend the complaint and include the right Defendant’s name. I was entitled to file my First Amended Complaint as a matter of right. “It is well established that ‘California courts’ have a policy of great liberality in allowing amendment at any stage of the proceedings so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others.’ Indeed, “it is a rare case in which a “court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his [or her] pleading so that he [or she] may properly present his [or her] case.”  Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. University v. Superior Court, 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163 citing Douglas v. Superior Court, (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 155, 158 [internal citations omitted]. Thus absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendments of pleadings will prevail.  Higgins v. Del Faro, (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564).  It follows; dismissing this case would leave me without legal redress for harm that was done against me. The Courts are meant to be the ultimate arbiter of justice, and when the doors of the courts are closed on me, I have nowhere else to seek justice.
  16. It is also notable that I filed this case before the attorney for Defendants moved the court to name me a vexatious litigant. Attorney for Defendant was aware I was about to file a new Complaint and moved the court to make me a vexatious litigant. Here again, attorney for Defendants have moved the Judge to deem me vexatious, yet I filed the Complaint prior to being made vexatious litigant. Attorney for Defendant moved the Judge to stay discovery, where if Defendants were to answer the request for admission, it can be very easily proven that Defendants are the most outrageous liars.
  17. As a matter of fact, Defendant’s counsel sought to maximize the alleged error in my Complaint in the said related case, where my former attorneys failed to use the correct Defendant’s name in the caption of the case. Thereafter, I made motions to attempt to seek a correction of the issue, which include my opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and my Motion for Leave to File my Amended Complaint. Defendant’s counsel challenged these filings by claiming that they were frivolous and ultimately. The presiding judge, appearing to collude with Defendant, granted Defendant’s ‘prayers’ and declared me vexatious. It should be noted that I challenged the Judge’s decision, and sought to have the judge disqualified. Ultimately, as proof that some error had been done, Judge Stephen Kleifield recused himself from the case, and Judge Michael Small took up the case.
  18. It follows; my conduct is nowhere near vexatious and/or frivolous. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391(b) identifies the factors that may be considered in determining whether a Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant, which factors include: Whether the Plaintiff, in pro per, has, in the past seven years, has commenced at least five cases that have been determined against the Plaintiff, or that have been delayed for at least two years without being brought to trial and/or hearing; Whether the Plaintiff re-litigates, in pro per, a matter that was already settled in a previous case; Whether the Plaintiff repeatedly makes unmeritorious filings in the court; or Whether the Plaintiff has previously been declared a frivolous litigant.
  19. In the past seven years, I have never commenced any actions that had been determined against her. I had also never delayed any action for at least two years. Next, my complaint was not a re-litigation of any previous matter that I had ever brought in court against the Defendants. I was suing the Defendants for the first time. Further, as I have already said, this case is not frivolous. I have been denied my chance to present my issues against Defendant, and filing this case is the only reasonable thing to do to ensure I gets legal redress.
  20. The instant lawsuit was therefore not started to harass Defendant in any way. I was only seeking to bring the case because all my efforts to present my case in another forum were denied and opposed by Defendant.

My Complaint has merits: it is therefore unjust to dismiss the complaint without considering the merits

  1. I will prevail on my causes of action for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud on the court. It would be unfair for this Court to fail to consider this case on its merits.

I will prevail on my defamation claim

  1. For the defamation claim, the defamatory report was sent by Sarah Poetter. The Defendant engaged in gross negligence in sending me home when they perceived me as having a mental health crisis instead of allowing me to be evaluated by qualified emergency room physician.
  2. Sarah Poetter’s response was to send the defamatory report to the BRN in which she claimed that I had quit Kaiser in October 2020 and claimed that I was delusional and psychotic. See Sarah Poetter’s Declaration in February 2022.
  3. I was verbally dismissed from work on August 28th 2020, with directions not to come back to work without a psychiatric clearance note, which I complied and provided on September 4th I received no response and was left in limbo at that point in October 2020.
  4. I then contacted cooperate, Sarah Poetter’s boss, Brooke Ball, for a resolution as to when I could go back to work.
  5. I was given the opportunity during the BRN interview to read the report. i asked for a copy of the very report I had just read and that was denied. I was directed to request the report via Email, which I did, but never received the report. i also attempted to subpoena the report through Dept. 57, but that was denied as well. This is why this court cannot dismiss my complaint without giving me an opportunity to conduct discovery on the facts. I served defendant with interrogatories, and if a response is provided, it will show that Kaiser’s records of my job performance in fact show that I was an excellent nurse. It is also noteworthy that Defendant responded to the discovery by sending frivolous records. (See Frivolous records).
  6. To further investigate this matter, my dismissal from work on August 28th 2020, had nothing to do with my ability to perform my duties at all. Kaiser has never been able to demonstrate exactly what duty(s) I was unable to perform. I complied with the manager’s request for a psychiatric clearance note and that was ignored. The request for fitness for duty came as a result of the conflict as to why I had complied with manager’s request, was ignored and was now being placed on suspension and threatened with termination.
  7. I suffered emotional trauma as a result of those actions, which required therapy to handle, upon realizing that I would be terminated because I refused to sign a suspension slip that was being used as a cover up. Kaiser then suggested that I had a mental illness because of my reaction to the trauma they caused. To further demonstrate this callous and insane conduct, they submit me to a fitness for duty examination after several months of conflict. The foregoing was done in bad faith because the request came on March 10th, but my last pay stub was deposited on March 12th, before Kaiser even scheduled the fitness for duty. There was no business necessity and legal standing for this request. Besides, the psychologist had cleared me for work. I had been working steadily with no issues and does not have any history of behavioral issues or mental illness. I also did not have any blemishes on my nursing record. Besides, I never refused to do the fitness for duty examination.
  8. Defendant further argues that CCP Section 43.8 protects against liability for communication from a hospital or its staff. On the contrary, the said rule does not apply if the report is defamatory and false and could be very easily proved as such were discovery to be allowed. Also, Kaiser has shown zero proof that I was unable to safely perform my RN duties and that the alleged poor job performance was in relation to mental illness or any functional limitation.
  9. It is my contention that the defamatory statement was made with malice to desperately provoke I asked defendant to prove that my job performance was not adequate and was in relation to my mental health and ‘behavioral issues.’ This statement also demonstrates that Kaiser is therefore taking responsibility for making the alleged defamatory statements to the BRN that led to my license being revoked.

I will prevail on my claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress

  1. Had defendants succeeded in placing me on the vexatious litigants list before I was able to file a new complaint, this would have surely led to death. Defendant blocked me from seeking restitution for the damages they caused, while they continued to damage my reputation. They also colluded with the BRN and attorney generals to revoke my license, and moved to dismiss the case before I could even conduct discovery for the facts.
  2. The said tactics are beyond outrageous. Defendants have been wrong from August 28, 2020 and their refusal to take any responsibility and steps they have taken to defend that blameworthy conduct proves my assertions as described above. It is only because I am extremely spiritual and draws strength from my spiritual connection to continue to survive Defendant’s actions and/or inactions. my life is damaged, and I can never work as a nurse again even if the truth comes to light and my RN license is re-instated. This case should therefore not be dismissed without conducting discovery as I can very easily proof with evidence, the outrageous steps defendants have taken to bury this case and hide the truth. Their actions in doing so is worthy of punitive damages.
  3. As I have already stated, I filed this case before I was made a vexatious litigant. It therefore beats logic how SCPMG continues to argue that the case should be dismissed solely on the grounds that I am now a vexatious litigant. It is further absurd that Lisa, attorney for KFH, moved the Judge in Dpt. 57 to place me on a vexatious litigants list. Now, Lisa, attorney for SCPMG, is asking the Judge in Dpt. 26 to dismiss the case based on the facts that I am now a vexatious litigant.
  4. This Honorable Court should observe that on October 31, 2022, my motion to file my First Amended Complaint was denied in Dpt. 57, and I stated that I would now have to file a new complaint with the correct defendant name. Lisa’s next move was to file an ex parte application for order to place me on vexatious litigants list on November 3, 2022. I requested a continuance to allow me time to properly oppose the ex parte application. The motion was continued for December 9th at which point it was granted. Prior to December 9th, I went ahead and filed a new complaint with correct defendant name in Dpt. 26, before I was named a vexatious litigant.
  5. Next, the BRN bases its accusation on the incidences of August 28, 2020. Defendants are not disputing that I was at work at Kaiser on August 28, 2020. Also, defendants are not disputing that Sarah Poetter was my manager. Therefore, I am clearly stating that during the interview with the BRN on July 14, 2021, I was allowed to read the report sent by Sarah Potter.
  6. It is a fact that Sarah Poetter received all of my clearance notes, which showed that there was nothing wrong with me. Sarah proceeded to send a defamatory report to BRN claiming I was psychotic, and had quit in October 2020. No consideration was given to the fact that I was verbally dismissed by Sarah Poetter on August 28, 2020, was kept on suspension, even after providing the requested clearance note, and was not terminated until March 2021. This was a personal opinion of Sarah Poetter that I was psychotic, and to send such a report to the BRN due to a conflict I had with Sarah was clearly outrageous and intended to inflict injury on me.
  7. Defendant argues that I was a nurse caring for patients while simultaneously demonstrating erratic and threatening behavior in the workplace. This statement is a painful and sadistic lie since defendant has already moved the judge to stay discovery when in fact if they were to produce my job performance records, there is absolutely no proof of the statement. I have an excellent track record wherever I worked and have no history of negligent patient care.
  8. Defendant’s counsel lies that I was harassing Xavier Edwards. As a matter of fact, Xavier is the bully whose bullying and harassing behavior initiated the incident on August 28, 2020, for which he had been reported for bullying twice in May and June of 2020. Defendant’s counsel also lies that I showed up at Xavier’s house and left dead flowers and voodoo dolls, that Los Angeles hospitals are on high alert because of me, and that six KFH staff have restraining orders against me. There is no evidence presented in court that shows I did the alleged acts. All these lies, with no evidence, point to a pattern of lies, which definitely hurts defendant’s credibility.
  9. The foregoing shows how Defendant(s) have gone at great lengths to destroy me because I pointed out their mistake. Notably, Defendant(s)’ pure malice and ego is the reason this conflict escalated to this level. It is evident of Defendant’s complete and utter disregard for my life, when I worked for them to save lives, and I was an excellent nurse.
  10. I stand my grounds and speak truth to power because they are wrong, plain and simple.

I will prevail on my cause of action for “Fraud on the Court.”

  1. Defendant concealed, misrepresented, and deceived me. Lisa’s fraud on the court is seen where she colluded with my former counsels in my related cases. Notably, in said cases, both attorneys never notified the Court that the wrong name of the Defendant was stated in the caption of the case. After terminating their representation of me, my Complaint would later be challenged by Lisa Magorien. Lisa filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 21, 2022, alleging inter alia, that I had named the wrong Defendant as party in the Complaint. I only realized that there was an issue with the Defendant’s name when I received the Motion for Summary Judgment from Lisa Magorien. The foregoing marked the genesis of my struggles in Court, which would later end up with my case being disposed and me being termed a vexatious litigant, as discussed in depth above.
  2. Further, as evidence of Defendant’s hideous nature, Defendant deliberately sent wrong Employee Records containing wrong Employee Number. It is notable that the form requesting release of the records was generated by Defendant, and contained the correct Employee Number and Emergency RN. This fact clearly shows that Defendant has something to hide.
  3. Therefore, Lisa has brought my vexatious litigant argument to this case, with the intention to block any further attempts by me to seek justice for the extensive harm done to me by the Defendants.

The Board of Registered Nursing is also colluding with Defendant and the Judge, to frustrate this case

  1. The BRN is colluding with Kaiser (SCPMG) and the judge, to get this case thrown out immediately, to avoid liability. The BRN’s liability is seen when it relied on a false report from my former employer, and unjustly and without good cause, subjected me to a Section 820 order compelling me to a mental examination, and ultimately revoked my RN license. The Board had already interviewed me on or about July 14, 2021.
  2. Consequently, BRN’s order compelling mental examination was executed on July 14, 2022, which is almost two years after the incidence that happened on August 28, 2020. Upon receiving Respondent’s records, the Board found no issue. These records included notes from a qualified psychologist who evaluated me over a 9-10-week period, concluding that I was safe to perform my RN duties with no mental illnesses precluding me from doing so. The same psychologist’s notes addressed the incident on August 28, 2020, for which I had sought therapy in the first place and was reported to the BRN by Kaiser. Loretta Melby, in my capacity as CEO of the organization, then filed an accusation against the Plaintiff. This gross incompetence raises questions about Ms. Melby’s judgment in this matter, making it necessary for further investigation into my actions.
  3. Nowhere in my history of nursing was there any record of bad patient care or any medical errors. Further, the delay of the BRN in taking action against me speaks to BRN’s intent in seeking to investigate and subject me to discipline. It is my assertion that if, in fact, I was a danger to the public as alleged the BRN in its Opposition to my motion and subpoena, this lack of urgency speaks to an absence of concern for the public’s safety.
  4. It is further notable that BRN’s appointed psychiatrist did not remember the correct day or month for the mental assessment and could not even recall his own phone number. This raised serious concerns that the psychiatrist was not competent to conduct the evaluation, prompting alarm from me and alerting the Board that their chosen doctor might be in need of help himself. The foregoing was grounds for any reasonable person to object to being evaluated by a confused individual. It is also bad faith for the BRN to execute its illegal orders in the middle of a lawsuit containing similar claims as those made to the BRN. The dismissal of this case without considering the merits thereof shows the BRN’s absurdity to rely on the allegations made against me to effect its orders.
  5. Also, based on the false allegations against me, Loretta Melby, Executive Officer of the BRN, filed an Accusation against me on or about November 14, 2022, alleging that I was subject to disciplinary action for failing to comply with the Section 820 Order compelling me to a mental examination. The Board appears to ignore the applicable law, which states that one should therefore be subjected to a mental examination only if such an examination is the least intrusive means of determining a physician’s mental condition. See Kees v. Medical Board, 7 Cal. App. 4th 1801 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). Courts have also held that a mental and/or physical examination should not be performed where there is no good cause for the examination. See Alexander D. v. State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 231 Cal.App.3d 92, 282 Cal. Rptr. 201 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). It follows; I was therefore not obligated to respond to an illegal Section 820 Order. It follows; the Board had absolutely no evidence that suggests that I am a danger to the public. The Board, in exercising its discretion, must have good cause and evidence to substantiate its claim. In the instant case, it is clear that the board is abusing its authority and choosing to ignore any evidence that shows that the accusation against me is false.
  6. The BRN’s bad faith is also evident when, on January 6, 2023, Gillian Friedman sent me a letter notifying me of the Board’s Decision and Order revoking my RN practicing license. In said decision and order, the Board averred that I failed to enter appearance and defend myself from the accusations brought before the Board by Loretta Melby. Consequently, the Board entered the decision against me in default, which decision revoked my practicing license. It is notable that the Board had done no investigation into the allegations that were presented to it by my former employer.
  7. It is in a bid to avoid liability that the BRN sought to join the Defendant(s) in ensuring my case is thrown out for procedural technicalities. For instance, the BRN held on to evidence that would shed more light on the case. In my related case at Department 57, the BRN opposed my Motion for Discovery Sanctions against the BRN. I had sent discovery requests to the BRN. However, the BRN failed to respond to the discovery request. I therefore filed a Motion for Discovery Sanctions against the BRN. In response thereof, the BRN alleged inter alia, that my motion for sanctions should be denied because there is no triable action since the Court already granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. What the BRN failed to consider is that the hearing date for the motion was set for March 28, 2023, which is evidence that the matter was still triable before the Court. The Court docket also showed other hearings scheduled in the case. The BRN also made other frivolous objections to the motion, in their attempt to avoid disclosing the information requested in the discovery requests. The foregoing shows how the BRN colludes with the Defendant and the Court, to obstruct my access to justice.

 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

 

Dated: _________________

Respectfully submitted,

 

_______ESTHER ATAM_____

ESTHER TENDO ATAM

 

 

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

 

 

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DISMISS

 

 

 

 

I, ESTHER TENDO ATAM, declare that:

  1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-titled matter.
  2. I am an adult of sound mind, hence capable of making this declaration.
  3. I make this Affidavit in support of my Opposition to Dismiss.

The discovery process has been abused, to my detriment

  1. Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2025.420, the court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. “One of the powers which has always been recognized as inherent in courts, which are protected in their existence, their powers and jurisdiction by constitutional provisions, has been the right to control its order of business and to so conduct the same that the rights of all suitors before them might be safeguarded.” Rice v. Superior Court (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 81, 90. “We have often recognized the ‘inherent powers of the court … to insure the orderly administration of justice.”’ Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 257, quoting Hays v. Superior Court (1940) 16 Cal.2d 260, 264.
  2. This Court ought to protect me from the blatant abuse of the discovery process in this case. First, I mailed a Request for Admission to Defendants on March 28, 2023. The RFA was delivered on March 31, 2023 (See Proof of Service). Therefore, a response was due by April 31, 2023.
  3. Next, I mailed out interrogatories to Defendants on March 28, 2023. The interrogatories was delivered March 31, 2023 (see Proof of Service). Therefore, a response was due by April 31, 2023. I never received any response to the interrogatories.
  4. I also requested for RN records to Kaiser National HR services on March 28, 2023 (see Fax Form 2810). A response was due by March 31, 2023, yet Kaiser failed to respond to this request. The first request for records on March 17, 2023, resulted in the production of fraudulent RN records (see RN records).
  5. Kaiser failed to respond to Request for Admission that was due January 9, 2023.
  6. In addition to the foregoing, Judge Elaine Lu stayed discovery during the hearing held on February 16, 2023. Staying the discovery process is unfair to me since the information requested in the discovery would provide pertinent facts and/or evidence, which would establish my claims against the Defendants. Also, failure of Judge Lu to find Defendants in abuse of the discovery process shows how Judge Lu is biased.

The Court unjustly removed upcoming hearings

  1. I am facing a threat of all future hearings being put off-calendar. The Minute Order that was issued by this court has the effect of putting off all future hearings off-calendar. The following pending upcoming hearings were therefore struck off: hearing to show cause, case management conference, status conference, motion to strike affirmative defense, and motion to deem facts admitted. It is notable that I had already made filings with respect to each hearing. my good faith efforts would therefore go to the drain in the event this Court upholds its decision to strike off the hearings.

Judge Elaine Lu is colluding with Judge Small

  1. Judge Elaine Lu colludes with Judge Michael Small at Department 57, to further curtail my rights. For instance, the Case Management Statement filed in Departments 26 and 57 in anticipation of the Case Management hearing on March 28, 2023, clearly presented the fraudulent RN records produced by Kasier. Judge Small failed to acknowledge this in his Minute Order on March 28, 2023. Then on March 29, 2023, Judge Small again vacated the upcoming hearing for sanctions in Department 26. He replaced that hearing date with the court’s own motion for dismissal. Judge Small also vacated all pending Reservation Ids already reserved by me and not even filed with the court. This included Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 26, Motion to Further Compel Discovery, and Motion to Disqualify Elaine Lu.
  2. It is also notable that I have already raised concerns over Judge Michael Small’s bias, and has already filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Small. In my motion to disqualify Judge Small, I alleged how inter alia, the judge wrongly declared my motion as frivolous, deemed me 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 me thousands of dollars if I continued to pursue my case, and failed to sanction the Defendants in that case, for abusing the discovery process by failing to respond to my discovery requests.

I am not a vexatious litigant, and only seek to find justice

  1. I am not vexatious and have never made any frivolous application in Court. By filing this Complaint, I am only seeking to pursue justice for the wrongs that have been done to me by the Defendants. Unfortunately, in my pursuit of justice, I have been subjected to fraud, even from my former attorneys. Below, I will outline the background to the filing of this case, which will explain why I filed this case in the first place.
  2. I procured the services of attorney Gary Carlin to represent me in the instant case, which was filed on November 10, 2021. Attorney Carlin named Kaiser Foundation Hospitals as the corporate Defendant in the case, disregarding my attached W2s and wage statements that named the correct Defendant: Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG). I was still confused as to why Gary put KFH in the complaint. I was still under the impression that perhaps he knew better and researched how to properly address the right name for the lawsuit.
  3. Having not been satisfied with Gary Carlin’s representation, I substituted the attorney by filing form MC-050 (Substitution of Attorney-Civil) on or about December 22, 2021. Notably, Gary wrote an email to my indicating that his office would send me a substitution of attorney form, which would require two signatures from her. Consequently, Gary sent over the substitution of attorney Form MC-050, which I duly signed. However, on February 15, 2022, Gary Carlin filed Form MC-050 “Substitution of Attorney” form. The form had a forged signature.
  4. I also noticed that Gary had forged the party’s Retainer Agreement. The forged Agreement stated that I had hired Gary for “Employment/Labor Law Issues Re Kaiser”. Not only was this not my handwriting, it contradicted what I initially stated as the correct name for the Defendant.
  5. Gary was in violation of Penal Code 470 PC, which is the California statute that defines the crime of forgery. A person commits this offense when he falsifies a signature or fraudulently alters certain documents.
  6. After I terminated the services of Gary Carlin, I procured the services of attorney Brennan M. Hershey through an agreement entered on or about December 21, 2021. The Retainer Agreement expressly stated that I hired Hershey to prosecute my action arising out of my employment with SCPMG.
  7. On March 28, 2022, Hershey filed a Case Management Statement, where he identified the Defendant as SCPMG. Hershey was later relieved as my counsel vide a Court Order issued granting his motion to be relieved as counsel. In the motion, Hershey argued that he withdrew because I had sent threats to the Defendants. Hershey’s averments were not true. The attorney was relived after I expressed my concerns on effective representation.
  8. Long after Gary’s representation had been terminated, Gary still went ahead to file a Case Management Statement for me on September 14, 2022, without my knowledge or consent. I then received a communication from Gary’s office that the Case Management Conference was sent mistakenly. After filing the CMS, Gary went ahead to give Defendant’s Counsel notice of the accidental filing. Gary never gave such a notice to Plaintiff. This action by Gary further shows their sinister motive to interfere with my case and thwart my access to justice.
  9. The Attorneys were aware of the error in the naming of the Defendant. As stated above, in my communication with Gary, I had attached W2s and wage statements that named the correct Defendant. Also, on December 21, 2021, Gary Carlin wrote an email to my titled “TAM V. SCPMG”. In the email, Gary further referred to the Defendant expressly as SCPMG.
  10. Further, I confronted Gary Carlin via email on October 28, 2022, with the fact that Gary had entered the wrong name of the Defendant and that he had forged my handwriting in the Retainer Agreement. Gary responded to my email and stated that the handwriting on the Retainer was most likely his handwriting. This amounts to a plain admission of forgery by Gary.
  11. On September 22, 2022, Gary filed a declaration regarding mistakes that do not constitute fraud. In the declaration, Gary failed to mention anything about his failure to enter the correct Defendant’s name in the caption. He only excused himself for mistakenly filing my Case Management Conference yet his services were already terminated. It is notable that Gary states that he has been licensed since January 15, 1970. It is therefore not expected for an attorney of such experience to make such mistakes. Clearly, Gary knew what he was doing.
  12. Attorney Carlin never bothered to correct his significant error of naming the incorrect entity. Gary Carlin further failed to inform me that Defendant’s counsel, Lisa Magorien, had informed him of the error. In fact, I first learned that the incorrect Defendant was named in the complaint, when I opposed Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on or about May 9, 2022.
  13. While retaining both Gary and Hershey Brennan, I was still under the impression that perhaps they knew better and researched how to properly address the right name for the lawsuit. It is for this reason that I relied on the representations of the attorneys, to my detriment. I issued subpoenas to Gary Carlin and Hershey Brennan to Prove that they committed the acts of concealment/fraudulent/intentional misrepresentation, in my case, which led to me being placed on the vexatious litigants list. Gary Carlin had an opportunity to include this in his declaration filed September 22, 2022, but he did not.
  14. It is notable that when representing Plaintiff, both attorneys never notified the Court that the wrong name of the Defendant was stated in the caption of the case. After terminating their representation of Plaintiff, my Complaint would later be challenged by Defendant’s counsel, Lisa Magorien. Notably, Lisa Magorien filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 21, 2022 alleging inter alia, that I had named the wrong Defendant as party in the Complaint. I only realized that there was an issue with the Defendant’s name when I received the Motion for Summary Judgment form Lisa Magorien. The foregoing marked the genesis of my struggles in Court, which would later end up with my case being disposed and me being termed a vexatious litigant.
  15. I therefore filed this Complaint because I was not allowed to file any Amended Complaint in the said related case. Defendant’s counsel vehemently opposed every step I took to amend the complaint and include the right Defendant’s name. I was entitled to file my First Amended Complaint as a matter of right. “It is well established that ‘California courts’ have a policy of great liberality in allowing amendment at any stage of the proceedings so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others.’ Indeed, “it is a rare case in which a “court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his [or her] pleading so that he [or she] may properly present his [or her] case.”  Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. University v. Superior Court, 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163 citing Douglas v. Superior Court, (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 155, 158 [internal citations omitted]. Thus absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendments of pleadings will prevail.  Higgins v. Del Faro, (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564).  It follows; dismissing this case would leave me without legal redress for harm that was done against me. The Courts are meant to be the ultimate arbiter of justice, and when the doors of the courts are closed on me, I have nowhere else to seek justice.
  16. It is also notable that I filed this case before the attorney for Defendants moved the court to name me a vexatious litigant. Attorney for Defendant was aware I was about to file a new Complaint and moved the court to make me a vexatious litigant. Here again, attorney for Defendants have moved the Judge to deem me vexatious, yet I filed the Complaint prior to being made vexatious litigant. Attorney for Defendant moved the Judge to stay discovery, where if Defendants were to answer the request for admission, it can be very easily proven that Defendants are the most outrageous liars.
  17. As a matter of fact, Defendant’s counsel sought to maximize the alleged error in my Complaint in the said related case, where my former attorneys failed to use the correct Defendant’s name in the caption of the case. Thereafter, I made motions to attempt to seek a correction of the issue, which include my opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and my Motion for Leave to File my Amended Complaint. Defendant’s counsel challenged these filings by claiming that they were frivolous and ultimately. The presiding judge, appearing to collude with Defendant, granted Defendant’s ‘prayers’ and declared me vexatious. It should be noted that I challenged the Judge’s decision, and sought to have the judge disqualified. Ultimately, as proof that some error had been done, Judge Stephen Kleifield recused himself from the case, and Judge Michael Small took up the case.
  18. It follows; my conduct is nowhere near vexatious and/or frivolous. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391(b) identifies the factors that may be considered in determining whether a Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant, which factors include: Whether the Plaintiff, in pro per, has, in the past seven years, has commenced at least five cases that have been determined against the Plaintiff, or that have been delayed for at least two years without being brought to trial and/or hearing; Whether the Plaintiff re-litigates, in pro per, a matter that was already settled in a previous case; Whether the Plaintiff repeatedly makes unmeritorious filings in the court; or Whether the Plaintiff has previously been declared a frivolous litigant.
  19. In the past seven years, I have never commenced any actions that had been determined against her. I had also never delayed any action for at least two years. Next, my complaint was not a re-litigation of any previous matter that I had ever brought in court against the Defendants. I was suing the Defendants for the first time. Further, as I have already said, this case is not frivolous. I have been denied my chance to present my issues against Defendant, and filing this case is the only reasonable thing to do to ensure I gets legal redress.
  20. The instant lawsuit was therefore not started to harass Defendant in any way. I was only seeking to bring the case because all my efforts to present my case in another forum were denied and opposed by Defendant.

My Complaint has merits: it is therefore unjust to dismiss the complaint without considering the merits

  1. I will prevail on my causes of action for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud on the court. It would be unfair for this Court to fail to consider this case on its merits.

I will prevail on my defamation claim

  1. For the defamation claim, the defamatory report was sent by Sarah Poetter. The Defendant engaged in gross negligence in sending me home when they perceived me as having a mental health crisis instead of allowing me to be evaluated by qualified emergency room physician.
  2. Sarah Poetter’s response was to send the defamatory report to the BRN in which she claimed that I had quit Kaiser in October 2020 and claimed that I was delusional and psychotic. See Sarah Poetter’s Declaration in February 2022.
  3. I was verbally dismissed from work on August 28th 2020, with directions not to come back to work without a psychiatric clearance note, which I complied and provided on September 4th I received no response and was left in limbo at that point in October 2020.
  4. I then contacted cooperate, Sarah Poetter’s boss, Brooke Ball, for a resolution as to when I could go back to work.
  5. I was given the opportunity during the BRN interview to read the report. i asked for a copy of the very report I had just read and that was denied. I was directed to request the report via Email, which I did, but never received the report. i also attempted to subpoena the report through Dept. 57, but that was denied as well. This is why this court cannot dismiss my complaint without giving me an opportunity to conduct discovery on the facts. I served defendant with interrogatories, and if a response is provided, it will show that Kaiser’s records of my job performance in fact show that I was an excellent nurse. It is also noteworthy that Defendant responded to the discovery by sending frivolous records. (See Frivolous records).
  6. To further investigate this matter, my dismissal from work on August 28th 2020, had nothing to do with my ability to perform my duties at all. Kaiser has never been able to demonstrate exactly what duty(s) I was unable to perform. I complied with the manager’s request for a psychiatric clearance note and that was ignored. The request for fitness for duty came as a result of the conflict as to why I had complied with manager’s request, was ignored and was now being placed on suspension and threatened with termination.
  7. I suffered emotional trauma as a result of those actions, which required therapy to handle, upon realizing that I would be terminated because I refused to sign a suspension slip that was being used as a cover up. Kaiser then suggested that I had a mental illness because of my reaction to the trauma they caused. To further demonstrate this callous and insane conduct, they submit me to a fitness for duty examination after several months of conflict. The foregoing was done in bad faith because the request came on March 10th, but my last pay stub was deposited on March 12th, before Kaiser even scheduled the fitness for duty. There was no business necessity and legal standing for this request. Besides, the psychologist had cleared me for work. I had been working steadily with no issues and does not have any history of behavioral issues or mental illness. I also did not have any blemishes on my nursing record. Besides, I never refused to do the fitness for duty examination.
  8. Defendant further argues that CCP Section 43.8 protects against liability for communication from a hospital or its staff. On the contrary, the said rule does not apply if the report is defamatory and false and could be very easily proved as such were discovery to be allowed. Also, Kaiser has shown zero proof that I was unable to safely perform my RN duties and that the alleged poor job performance was in relation to mental illness or any functional limitation.
  9. It is my contention that the defamatory statement was made with malice to desperately provoke I asked defendant to prove that my job performance was not adequate and was in relation to my mental health and ‘behavioral issues.’ This statement also demonstrates that Kaiser is therefore taking responsibility for making the alleged defamatory statements to the BRN that led to my license being revoked.

I will prevail on my claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress

  1. Had defendants succeeded in placing me on the vexatious litigants list before I was able to file a new complaint, this would have surely led to death. Defendant blocked me from seeking restitution for the damages they caused, while they continued to damage my reputation. They also colluded with the BRN and attorney generals to revoke my license, and moved to dismiss the case before I could even conduct discovery for the facts.
  2. The said tactics are beyond outrageous. Defendants have been wrong from August 28, 2020 and their refusal to take any responsibility and steps they have taken to defend that blameworthy conduct proves my assertions as described above. It is only because I am extremely spiritual and draws strength from my spiritual connection to continue to survive Defendant’s actions and/or inactions. my life is damaged, and I can never work as a nurse again even if the truth comes to light and my RN license is re-instated. This case should therefore not be dismissed without conducting discovery as I can very easily proof with evidence, the outrageous steps defendants have taken to bury this case and hide the truth. Their actions in doing so is worthy of punitive damages.
  3. As I have already stated, I filed this case before I was made a vexatious litigant. It therefore beats logic how SCPMG continues to argue that the case should be dismissed solely on the grounds that I am now a vexatious litigant. It is further absurd that Lisa, attorney for KFH, moved the Judge in Dpt. 57 to place me on a vexatious litigants list. Now, Lisa, attorney for SCPMG, is asking the Judge in Dpt. 26 to dismiss the case based on the facts that I am now a vexatious litigant.
  4. This Honorable Court should observe that on October 31, 2022, my motion to file my First Amended Complaint was denied in Dpt. 57, and I stated that I would now have to file a new complaint with the correct defendant name. Lisa’s next move was to file an ex parte application for order to place me on vexatious litigants list on November 3, 2022. I requested a continuance to allow me time to properly oppose the ex parte application. The motion was continued for December 9th at which point it was granted. Prior to December 9th, I went ahead and filed a new complaint with correct defendant name in Dpt. 26, before I was named a vexatious litigant.
  5. Next, the BRN bases its accusation on the incidences of August 28, 2020. Defendants are not disputing that I was at work at Kaiser on August 28, 2020. Also, defendants are not disputing that Sarah Poetter was my manager. Therefore, I am clearly stating that during the interview with the BRN on July 14, 2021, I was allowed to read the report sent by Sarah Potter.
  6. It is a fact that Sarah Poetter received all of my clearance notes, which showed that there was nothing wrong with me. Sarah proceeded to send a defamatory report to BRN claiming I was psychotic, and had quit in October 2020. No consideration was given to the fact that I was verbally dismissed by Sarah Poetter on August 28, 2020, was kept on suspension, even after providing the requested clearance note, and was not terminated until March 2021. This was a personal opinion of Sarah Poetter that I was psychotic, and to send such a report to the BRN due to a conflict I had with Sarah was clearly outrageous and intended to inflict injury on me.
  7. Defendant argues that I was a nurse caring for patients while simultaneously demonstrating erratic and threatening behavior in the workplace. This statement is a painful and sadistic lie since defendant has already moved the judge to stay discovery when in fact if they were to produce my job performance records, there is absolutely no proof of the statement. I have an excellent track record wherever I worked and have no history of negligent patient care.
  8. Defendant’s counsel lies that I was harassing Xavier Edwards. As a matter of fact, Xavier is the bully whose bullying and harassing behavior initiated the incident on August 28, 2020, for which he had been reported for bullying twice in May and June of 2020. Defendant’s counsel also lies that I showed up at Xavier’s house and left dead flowers and voodoo dolls, that Los Angeles hospitals are on high alert because of me, and that six KFH staff have restraining orders against me. There is no evidence presented in court that shows I did the alleged acts. All these lies, with no evidence, point to a pattern of lies, which definitely hurts defendant’s credibility.
  9. The foregoing shows how Defendant(s) have gone at great lengths to destroy me because I pointed out their mistake. Notably, Defendant(s)’ pure malice and ego is the reason this conflict escalated to this level. It is evident of Defendant’s complete and utter disregard for my life, when I worked for them to save lives, and I was an excellent nurse.
  10. I stand my grounds and speak truth to power because they are wrong, plain and simple.

I will prevail on my cause of action for “Fraud on the Court.”

  1. Defendant concealed, misrepresented, and deceived me. Lisa’s fraud on the court is seen where she colluded with my former counsels in my related cases. Notably, in said cases, both attorneys never notified the Court that the wrong name of the Defendant was stated in the caption of the case. After terminating their representation of me, my Complaint would later be challenged by Lisa Magorien. Lisa filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 21, 2022, alleging inter alia, that I had named the wrong Defendant as party in the Complaint. I only realized that there was an issue with the Defendant’s name when I received the Motion for Summary Judgment from Lisa Magorien. The foregoing marked the genesis of my struggles in Court, which would later end up with my case being disposed and me being termed a vexatious litigant, as discussed in depth above.
  2. Further, as evidence of Defendant’s hideous nature, Defendant deliberately sent wrong Employee Records containing wrong Employee Number. It is notable that the form requesting release of the records was generated by Defendant, and contained the correct Employee Number and Emergency RN. This fact clearly shows that Defendant has something to hide.
  3. Therefore, Lisa has brought my vexatious litigant argument to this case, with the intention to block any further attempts by me to seek justice for the extensive harm done to me by the Defendants.

The Board of Registered Nursing is also colluding with Defendant and the Judge, to frustrate this case

  1. The BRN is colluding with Kaiser (SCPMG) and the judge, to get this case thrown out immediately, to avoid liability. The BRN’s liability is seen when it relied on a false report from my former employer, and unjustly and without good cause, subjected me to a Section 820 order compelling me to a mental examination, and ultimately revoked my RN license. The Board had already interviewed me on or about July 14, 2021.
  2. Consequently, BRN’s order compelling mental examination was executed on July 14, 2022, which is almost two years after the incidence that happened on August 28, 2020. Upon receiving Respondent’s records, the Board found no issue. These records included notes from a qualified psychologist who evaluated me over a 9-10-week period, concluding that I was safe to perform my RN duties with no mental illnesses precluding me from doing so. The same psychologist’s notes addressed the incident on August 28, 2020, for which I had sought therapy in the first place and was reported to the BRN by Kaiser. Loretta Melby, in my capacity as CEO of the organization, then filed an accusation against the Plaintiff. This gross incompetence raises questions about Ms. Melby’s judgment in this matter, making it necessary for further investigation into my actions.
  3. Nowhere in my history of nursing was there any record of bad patient care or any medical errors. Further, the delay of the BRN in taking action against me speaks to BRN’s intent in seeking to investigate and subject me to discipline. It is my assertion that if, in fact, I was a danger to the public as alleged the BRN in its Opposition to my motion and subpoena, this lack of urgency speaks to an absence of concern for the public’s safety.
  4. It is further notable that BRN’s appointed psychiatrist did not remember the correct day or month for the mental assessment and could not even recall his own phone number. This raised serious concerns that the psychiatrist was not competent to conduct the evaluation, prompting alarm from me and alerting the Board that their chosen doctor might be in need of help himself. The foregoing was grounds for any reasonable person to object to being evaluated by a confused individual. It is also bad faith for the BRN to execute its illegal orders in the middle of a lawsuit containing similar claims as those made to the BRN. The dismissal of this case without considering the merits thereof shows the BRN’s absurdity to rely on the allegations made against me to effect its orders.
  5. Also, based on the false allegations against me, Loretta Melby, Executive Officer of the BRN, filed an Accusation against me on or about November 14, 2022, alleging that I was subject to disciplinary action for failing to comply with the Section 820 Order compelling me to a mental examination. The Board appears to ignore the applicable law, which states that one should therefore be subjected to a mental examination only if such an examination is the least intrusive means of determining a physician’s mental condition. See Kees v. Medical Board, 7 Cal. App. 4th 1801 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). Courts have also held that a mental and/or physical examination should not be performed where there is no good cause for the examination. See Alexander D. v. State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 231 Cal.App.3d 92, 282 Cal. Rptr. 201 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). It follows; I was therefore not obligated to respond to an illegal Section 820 Order. It follows; the Board had absolutely no evidence that suggests that I am a danger to the public. The Board, in exercising its discretion, must have good cause and evidence to substantiate its claim. In the instant case, it is clear that the board is abusing its authority and choosing to ignore any evidence that shows that the accusation against me is false.
  6. The BRN’s bad faith is also evident when, on January 6, 2023, Gillian Friedman sent me a letter notifying me of the Board’s Decision and Order revoking my RN practicing license. In said decision and order, the Board averred that I failed to enter appearance and defend myself from the accusations brought before the Board by Loretta Melby. Consequently, the Board entered the decision against me in default, which decision revoked my practicing license. It is notable that the Board had done no investigation into the allegations that were presented to it by my former employer.
  7. It is in a bid to avoid liability that the BRN sought to join the Defendant(s) in ensuring my case is thrown out for procedural technicalities. For instance, the BRN held on to evidence that would shed more light on the case. In my related case at Department 57, the BRN opposed my Motion for Discovery Sanctions against the BRN. I had sent discovery requests to the BRN. However, the BRN failed to respond to the discovery request. I therefore filed a Motion for Discovery Sanctions against the BRN. In response thereof, the BRN alleged inter alia, that my motion for sanctions should be denied because there is no triable action since the Court already granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. What the BRN failed to consider is that the hearing date for the motion was set for March 28, 2023, which is evidence that the matter was still triable before the Court. The Court docket also showed other hearings scheduled in the case. The BRN also made other frivolous objections to the motion, in their attempt to avoid disclosing the information requested in the discovery requests. The foregoing shows how the BRN colludes with the Defendant and the Court, to obstruct my access to justice.

 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

 

Dated: _________________

Respectfully submitted,

 

_______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 )