XXX
XXX
XXX
Plaintiff in Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF XXX
COUNTY OF XXX
| ESTHER TENDO ATAM,
Plaintiff vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP (SCPMG), et al.
Defendants |
Case No.: XXX [Related to Case No. XXX]
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S SUREPLY (4/6/23 OPPOSITION AND 4/12/23 AFFIDAVIT) TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS |
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ESTHER TENDO ATAM, pro se, and files this Response to Defendants’ Objection to Plaintiff’s Sureply (4/6/23 opposition and 4/12/23 affidavit) to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. In response thereof, Plaintiff states as follows:
- Surreplies are not expressly prohibited
There is no statutory authority for filing and serving papers after the moving party’s reply papers have been filed and served. It follows; there is no provision for surreply papers. Plaintiff asserts that since there is no law expressly barring surreplies, this Court should allow Plaintiff’s surreplies and deny Defendants’ averments in their Opposition to the surreplies.
- Allowing the filing of surreplies is a matter of the court’s jurisdiction
The trial court, of course, has the inherent authority and discretion to permit the parties to file additional briefs if the trial court deems that additional briefing would be helpful. In XXX, the Court noted that as much as the court exercised its discretion in denying the Plaintiff’s surreply, it was unfortunate for plaintiff because in the absence of the surreply, plaintiff failed to properly and in a timely manner raise her argument in the trial court.
It follows; this court’s refusal of Plaintiff’s surreplies would drastically impact Plaintiff. The surreply contain detailed factual and/or legal analysis, which not only outline the Defendants’ fraudulent conduct in the pendency of this case, but also how the Court is participating in the fraud. Besides, the surreplies were filed to challenge the potential dismissal of Plaintiff’s case. A dismissal of this case would drastically impact Plaintiff. Plaintiff has already suffered from the Defendants’ actions and/or inactions.
It was also necessary for Plaintiff to file the surreplies because Judge Small had initially taken the hearing for the motion to dismiss off the docket. Notably, on March 17, 20XX, Judge Small, the presiding judge in Plaintiff’s related case (21STCV41538), vacated all the hearings in this case, including the May 9th hearing to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Accordingly, the hearing of the Motion to dismiss was then off docket, with no re-set date. However, the Judge put the matter back on the docket and scheduled a hearing date thereof. Plaintiff therefore asserts her right not to be condemned unheard. The U.S. Supreme Court in XXX, stated, “The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.” It is also a principle of equity that equity suffers no wrong to be without a right. It follows; it is necessary for Plaintiff to file the surreplies to prevent the dismissal of her complaint. Dismissing Plaintiff’s case would essentially be denying Plaintiff’s right to legal redress.
For these reasons, Plaintiff asserts that it is expedient for the court to exercise its discretion and allow Plaintiff’s surreplies, in the interest of justice.
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
XXX
XXX
XXX
Telephone: XXX
Facsimile: XXX
Attorney for Defendants
DATED: ______________
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 )