Esther Tendo Atam
13621 Arcturus Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
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), A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL., et al. Defendants |
Case No.: 22STCV37929
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Judge: Elaine Lu Dpt.: 26 Hearing Date: |
TO THE SUPERIOR COURT, TO DEFENDANTS, AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD AND TO HON. ELAINE LU:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on ________________________ at _________.M., or as soon after that as the matter can be heard, in Dept. 26 of the above-entitled Court located at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Plaintiff, Esther Tendo Atam (“Plaintiff”), will move the Court to reconsider it Minute Order entered on March 17, 2023.
The motion will be based on this Notice of Motion, the Motion itself and the averments therein, on any records and files already filed in this case, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.
Dated: ____________
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Esther Tendo Atam
Esther Tendo Atam
13621 Arcturus Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
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
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Judge: Elaine Lu Dpt.: 26 Hearing Date: |
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ESTHER TENDO ATAM, pro se, pursuant to CCP § 1008 et seq., and moves this Court to reconsider its Minute Order issued on March 17, 2023, which assigned Plaintiff’s instant case to Judge Michael Small in 21STCV41538, Plaintiff’s related case at Department 57. In support of this motion, Plaintiff states as follows:
- Standard of Review
This court has jurisdiction to reconsider its prior order/ruling. See Stephen v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 806, 816; see also Curtin v. Koskey (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 873, 876 and Graham v. Hansen (1982) 128 Cal. App. 3d 965, 970.
Section 1008, subdivision (a) requires that a motion for reconsideration be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law. A party seeking reconsideration also must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time. See Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 689 [68 Cal.Rptr.2d 228]. A trial court’s ruling on a motion for reconsideration is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457 [45 Cal.Rptr.2d 695].
- The discovery process has been abused, to Plaintiff’s detriment
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.
Plaintiff asserts that this Court ought to protect her from the blatant abuse of the discovery process in this case. First, Plaintiff 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.
Next, Plaintiff 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. Plaintiff never received any response to the interrogatories.
Plaintiff 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).
Kaiser failed to respond to Request for Admission that was due January 9, 2023.
In addition to the foregoing, Judge Elaine Lu stayed discovery during the hearing held on February 16, 2023. It is Plaintiff’s contention that staying the discovery process is unfair to Plaintiff since the information requested in the discovery would provide pertinent facts and/or evidence, which would establish Plaintiff’s 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
The Minute Order that is the subject of this motion ha 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 Plaintiff had already made filings with respect to each hearing. Plaintiff’s 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
The foregoing shows how Judge Elaine Lu colludes with Judge Michael Small at Department 57, to further curtail Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff 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.
It is also notable that Plaintiff has already raised concerns over Judge Michael Small’s bias, and has already filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Small. In her motion to disqualify Judge Small, Plaintiff alleged how inter alia, the judge wrongly declared Plaintiff’s motion as frivolous, deemed Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff thousands of dollars if he continued to pursue her case, and failed to sanction the Defendants in that case, for abusing the discovery process by failing to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
It is absurd for Judge Lu to have this case transferred to a biased judge. This action will impede Plaintiff’s access to justice. The foregoing therefore shows how the Judges in both cases are driven by hideous intent to make sure Plaintiff’s case is thrown out of the courts, and that Plaintiff never gets her day in court. Putting off this case and combining it with 21STCV41538 would only make it impossible for Plaintiff to further her claims against the instant Defendants. The two cases have different parties. Besides, the Court in 21STCV41538 already denied Plaintiff her Right to Amend her Complaint to correct the Defendant’s name. Therefore, the Court would not allow Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint to include said Defendants.
- Plaintiff is not a vexatious litigant, and only seeks to find justice
Plaintiff asserts that she is not vexatious and has never made any frivolous application in Court. By filing this Complaint, Plaintiff is only seeking to pursue justice for the wrongs that have been done to her by the Defendants. Unfortunately, in her pursuit of justice, she has been subjected to fraud, even from her former attorneys. Below, Plaintiff will outline the background to the filing of this case, which will explain why Plaintiff filed this case in the first place.
Plaintiff procured the services of attorney Gary Carlin to represent her 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 Plaintiff’s attached W2s and wage statements that named the correct Defendant: Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG). Plaintiff was still confused as to why Gary put KFH in the complaint. Plaintiff was still under the impression that perhaps he knew better and researched how to properly address the right name for the lawsuit.
Having not been satisfied with Gary Carlin’s representation, Plaintiff substituted the attorney by filing form MC-050 (Substitution of Attorney-Civil) on or about December 22, 2021. Notably, Gary wrote an email to her indicating that his office would send her a substitution of attorney form, which would require two signatures from her. Consequently, Gary sent over the substitution of attorney Form MC-050, which Plaintiff duly signed.
However, on February 15, 2022, Gary Carlin filed Form MC-050 “Substitution of Attorney” form. The form had a forged signature. Plaintiff also noticed that Gary had forged the party’s Retainer Agreement. The forged Agreement stated that Plaintiff had hired Gary for “Employment/Labor Law Issues Re Kaiser”. Not only was this not Plaintiff’s handwriting, it contradicted what Plaintiff initially stated as the correct name for the Defendant.
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.
After Plaintiff terminated the services of Gary Carlin, Plaintiff procured the services of attorney Brennan M. Hershey through an agreement entered on or about December 21, 2021. The Retainer Agreement expressly stated that Plaintiff hired Hershey to prosecute Plaintiff’s action arising out of Plaintiff’s employment with SCPMG.
On March 28, 2022, Hershey filed a Case Management Statement, where he identified the Defendant as SCPMG. Hershey was later relieved as Plaintiff’s counsel vide a Court Order issued granting his motion to be relieved as counsel. In the motion, Hershey argued that he withdrew because Plaintiff had sent threats to the Defendants. Hershey’s averments were not true. The attorney was relived after Plaintiff expressed her concerns on effective representation.
Long after Gary’s representation had been terminated, Gary still went ahead to file a Case Management Statement for Plaintiff on September 14, 2022, without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff’s case and thwart Plaintiff’s access to justice.
The Attorneys were aware of the error in the naming of the Defendant. As stated above, in her communication with Gary, Plaintiff had attached W2s and wage statements that named the correct Defendant. Also, on December 21, 2021, Gary Carlin wrote an email to her titled “TAM V. SCPMG”. In the email, Gary further referred to the Defendant expressly as SCPMG.
Further, Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff’s handwriting in the Retainer Agreement. Gary responded to Plaintiff’s email and stated that the handwriting on the Retainer was most likely his handwriting. This amounts to a plain admission of forgery by Gary.
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 Plaintiff’s 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.
Attorney Carlin never bothered to correct his significant error of naming the incorrect entity. Gary Carlin further failed to inform Plaintiff that Defendant’s counsel, Lisa Magorien, had informed him of the error. In fact, Plaintiff first learned that the incorrect Defendant was named in the complaint, when Plaintiff opposed Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on or about May 9, 2022.
While retaining both Gary and Hershey Brennan, Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff relied on the representations of the attorneys, to Plaintiff’s detriment. Plaintiff issued subpoenas to Gary Carlin and Hershey Brennan to Prove that they committed the acts of concealment/fraudulent/intentional misrepresentation, in Plaintiff’s case, which led to her 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.
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, Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff had named the wrong Defendant as party in the Complaint. Plaintiff only realized that there was an issue with the Defendant’s name when she received the Motion for Summary Judgment form Lisa Magorien. The foregoing marked the genesis of Plaintiff’s struggles in Court, which would later end up with Plaintiff’s case being disposed and Plaintiff being termed a vexatious litigant.
Plaintiff therefore filed this Complaint because she was not allowed to file any Amended Complaint in the said related case. Defendant’s counsel vehemently opposed every step Plaintiff took to amend the complaint and include the right Defendant’s name. Plaintiff was entitled to file her 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 Plaintiff without legal redress for harm that was done against her. The Courts are meant to be the ultimate arbiter of justice, and when the doors of the courts are closed on Plaintiff, she has nowhere else to seek justice.
It is also notable that Plaintiff filed this case before the attorney for Defendants moved the court to name Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Attorney for Defendant was aware Plaintiff was about to file a new Complaint and moved the court to make Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Here again, attorney for Defendants have to move the Judge to deem plaintiff vexatious, as Plaintiff 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.
As a matter of fact, Defendant’s counsel sought to maximize the alleged error in Plaintiff’s Complaint in the said related case, where Plaintiff’s former attorneys failed to use the correct Defendant’s name in the caption of the case. Thereafter, Plaintiff made motions to attempt to seek a correction of the issue, which include her opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and her Motion for Leave to File her Amended Complaint. Defendant’s counsel challenged these filings by claiming that they were frivolous and ultimately, she filed an ex parte motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. The presiding judge, appearing to collude with Defendant, granted Defendant’s ‘prayers’ and declared Plaintiff vexatious. It should be noted that Plaintiff 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.
It follows; Plaintiff’s 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.
First, in the past seven years, Plaintiff never commenced any actions, that had been determined against her. She had also never delayed any action for at least two years. Next, the complaint was not a re-litigation of any previous matter that Plaintiff had ever brought in court against the Defendants. Plaintiff was suing the Defendants for the first time.
Further, as Plaintiff has already said, this case is not frivolous. Plaintiff has been denied her chance to present her issues against Defendant, and filing this case is the only reasonable thing to do to ensure she gets legal redress.
The instant lawsuit was therefore not started to harass Defendant in any way. Plaintiff was only seeking to bring the case because all her efforts to present her case in another forum were denied and opposed by Defendant.
- Plaintiff’s Complaint has merits: it is therefore unjust to remove the complaint without considering the merits
Plaintiff asserts that she will prevail on her 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.
- Plaintiff will prevail on her defamation claim
For the defamation claim, Plaintiff maintains that the defamatory report was sent by Sarah Poetter. Also, the Defendant engaged in gross negligence in sending Plaintiff home when they perceived her as having a mental health crisis instead of allowing plaintiff to be evaluated by qualified emergency room physician. Sarah Poetter’s response was to send the defamatory report to the BRN in which she claimed that plaintiff had quit Kaiser in October 2020 and claimed that plaintiff was delusional and psychotic. See Sarah Poetter’s Declaration in February 2022.
Plaintiff was verbally dismissed from work on August 28th 2020, with directives not to come back to work without a psychiatric clearance note, which plaintiff complied and provided on September 4th 2020. Plaintiff received no response and was left in limbo at that point in October 2020. She contacted cooperate, Sarah Poetter’s boss, Brooke Ball, for a resolution as to when she could go back to work. See Communications with Sarah Poetter’s boss Brooke Ball, stating she was looking forward to meeting Plaintiff on November 6th 2020, to address the report that Plaintiff sent to her regarding Sarah Poetter.
Plaintiff was given the opportunity during the BRN interview to read the report. She asked for a copy of the very report she had just read and that was denied. Plaintiff was directed to request the report via Email, which she did, but never received the report. She also attempted to subpoena the report through Dept. 57, but that was denied as well. This is why this court cannot dismiss plaintiff’s complaint without giving plaintiff an opportunity to conduct discovery on the facts. Plaintiff served defendant with interrogatories, and if a response is provided, it will show that Kaiser’s records of plaintiff’s job performance in fact show that plaintiff was an excellent nurse. It is also noteworthy that Defendant responded to the discovery by sending frivolous records. (See Frivolous records).
To further investigate this matter, plaintiff’s dismissal from work on August 28th 2020, had nothing to do with plaintiff’s ability to perform her duties at all. Kaiser has never been able to demonstrate exactly what duty(s) plaintiff was unable to perform. Plaintiff 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 plaintiff had complied with manager’s request, was ignored and was now being placed on suspension and threatened with termination.
Plaintiff suffered emotional trauma as a result of those actions, which required therapy to handle, upon realizing that she would be terminated because she refused to sign a suspension slip that was being used as a cover up. Kaiser then suggested that plaintiff had a mental illness because of her reaction to the trauma they caused. To further demonstrate this callous and insane conduct, they submit plaintiff 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 plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff for work. She had been working steadily with no issues and does not have any history of behavioral issues or mental illness. She also does not have any blemishes on her nursing record. Besides, she never refused to do the fitness for duty examination.
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 Plaintiff was unable to safely perform her RN duties and that the alleged poor job performance was in relation to mental illness or any functional limitation.
It is Plaintiff’s contention that the defamatory statement was made with malice to desperately provoke plaintiff. Plaintiff asked defendant to prove that her job performance was not adequate and was in relation to plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff’s license being revoked.
- Plaintiff will prevail on her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress
Plaintiff asserts that had defendants succeeded in placing plaintiff her on the vexatious litigants list before she was able to file a new complaint, this would have surely led to death. Defendant blocked plaintiff from seeking restitution for the damages they caused, while they continued to damage her reputation. They also colluded with the BRN and attorney generals to revoke plaintiff’s license, and moved to dismiss the case before plaintiff could even conduct discovery for the facts.
Plaintiff maintains that 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 Plaintiff’s assertions as described above. It is only because plaintiff is extremely spiritual and draws strength from her spiritual connection to continue to survive Defendant’s actions and/or inactions. Plaintiff’s life is damaged, and she can never work as a nurse again even if the truth comes to light and her RN license is re-instated. This case should therefore not be dismissed without conducting discovery as plaintiff 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.
As Plaintiff has already state, she filed this case before she 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 plaintiff is now a vexatious litigant. It is further absurd that Lisa, attorney for KFH, moved the Judge in Dpt. 57 to place plaintiff 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 plaintiff is now a vexatious litigant.
This Honorable Court should observe that on October 31, 2022, plaintiff’s motion to file her First Amended Complaint was denied in Dpt. 57, and plaintiff stated that she 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 plaintiff on vexatious litigants list on November 3, 2022. Plaintiff requested a continuance to allow plaintiff 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, plaintiff went ahead and filed a new complaint with correct defendant name in Dpt. 26, before she was named a vexatious litigant.
Next, the BRN bases its accusation on the incidences of August 28, 2020. Defendants are not disputing that plaintiff was at work at Kaiser on August 28, 2020. Also, defendants are not disputing that Sarah Poetter was plaintiff’s manager. Therefore, plaintiff is clearly stating that during the interview with the BRN on July 14, 2021, she was allowed to read the report sent by Sarah Potter. (See subpoena to Cristina Vasquez, BRN investigator, who interviewed plaintiff and provided her the report sent by Sarah Poetter to review and asked plaintiff follow up questions about the report).
It is a fact that Sarah Poetter received all of plaintiff’s clearance notes, which showed that there was nothing wrong with Plaintiff. Sarah proceeded to send a defamatory report to BRN claiming plaintiff was psychotic, and had quit in October 2020. No consideration was given to the fact that plaintiff 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 plaintiff was psychotic, and to send such a report to the BRN due to a conflict she had with plaintiff was clearly outrageous and intended to inflict injury on Plaintiff.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff was a nurse caring for patients while simultaneously demonstrating erratic and threatening behavior in the workplace. Plaintiff asserts that 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 plaintiff’s job performance records, there is absolutely no proof of the statement. Plaintiff has an excellent track record wherever she worked and has no history of negligent patient care.
Plaintiff further asserts that Defendant’s counsel lies that plaintiff 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 plaintiff showed up at Xavier’s house and left dead flowers and voodoo dolls, that Los Angeles hospitals are on high alert because of plaintiff, and that six KFH staff have restraining orders against plaintiff. There is no evidence presented in court that shows Plaintiff did the alleged acts. All these lies, with no evidence, point to a pattern of lies, which definitely hurts defendant’s credibility.
- Plaintiff will prevail on her on Her Cause of Action for “Fraud on the Court.”
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant concealed, misrepresented, and deceived Plaintiff. Lisa’s fraud on the court is seen where she colluded with Plaintiff’s former counsels in Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s Complaint would later be challenged by Lisa Magorien. Lisa filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 21, 2022, alleging inter alia, that Plaintiff had named the wrong Defendant as party in the Complaint. Plaintiff only realized that there was an issue with the Defendant’s name when she received the Motion for Summary Judgment from Lisa Magorien. The foregoing marked the genesis of Plaintiff’s struggles in Court, which would later end up with Plaintiff’s case being disposed and Plaintiff being termed a vexatious litigant, as discussed in depth above.
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.
Therefore, Lisa has brought her vexatious litigant argument to this case, with the intention to block any further attempts by Plaintiff to seek justice for the extensive harm done to her by the Defendants.
- The Board of Registered Nursing is also colluding with Defendant and the Judge, to frustrate this case
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 Plaintiff’s former employer, and unjustly and without good cause, subjected Plaintiff to a Section 820 order compelling Plaintiff to a mental examination, and ultimately revoked Plaintiff’s RN license. The Board had already interviewed Plaintiff on or about July 14, 2021.
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 Plaintiff over a 9-10 week period, concluding that Plaintiff was safe to perform her RN duties with no mental illnesses precluding her from doing so. The same psychologist’s notes addressed the incident on August 28, 2020, for which Plaintiff had sought therapy in the first place and was reported to the BRN by Kaiser. Loretta Melby, in her 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 her actions.
Plaintiff emphasizes that nowhere in her 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 Plaintiff speaks to BRN’s intent in seeking to investigate and subject Plaintiff to discipline. It is Plaintiff’s assertion that if, in fact, plaintiff was a danger to the public as alleged the BRN in its Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion and subpoena, this lack of urgency speaks to an absence of concern for the public’s safety.
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 Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff to effect its orders.
Also, based on the false allegations against Plaintiff, Loretta Melby, Executive Officer of the BRN, filed an Accusation against Plaintiff on or about November 14, 2022, alleging that Plaintiff was subject to disciplinary action for failing to comply with the Section 820 Order compelling her 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; Plaintiff was therefore not obligated to respond to an illegal Section 820 Order. It follows; the Board had absolutely no evidence that suggests that Plaintiff is 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 Plaintiff is false.
The BRN’s bad faith is also evident when, on January 6, 2023, Gillian Friedman sent Plaintiff a letter notifying her of the Board’s Decision and Order revoking her RN practicing license. In said decision and order, the Board averred that Plaintiff failed to enter appearance and defend herself from the accusations brought before the Board by Loretta Melby. Consequently, the Board entered the decision against Plaintiff in default, which decision revoked her practicing license. It is notable that the Board had done no investigation into the allegations that were presented to it by Plaintiff’s former employer.
It is in a bid to avoid liability that the BRN sought to join the Defendant(s) in ensuring Plaintiff’s case is thrown out for procedural technicalities. For instance, the BRN held on to evidence that would shed more light on the case. In Plaintiff’s related case at Department 57, the BRN opposed Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery Sanctions against the BRN. Plaintiff had sent discovery requests to the BRN. However, the BRN failed to respond to the discovery request. Plaintiff therefore filed a Motion for Discovery Sanctions against the BRN. In response thereof, the BRN alleged inter alia, that Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s access to justice.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests that this Court, in the interest of justice, reconsiders its Minute Order. Plaintiff also prays for any further Order this Court deems just.
Dated: _________________
Respectfully submitted,
_______ESTHER ATAM_____
ESTHER TENDO ATAM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff hereby certify that on __________, copies of the foregoing document have been sent to the Defendant in the following address:
Lisa M. Magorien, Esq. (SBN: 259877)
LAGASSE BRANCH BELL + KINKEAD LLP
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 950
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 345-5080
Facsimile: (858) 345-5025.
Attorney for Defendant
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 )
