PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS
1 / 197
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Exhibit 1- Gary’s letter referencing SCPMG- December 21, 2021………………………………. 4
Exhibit 2- Proof of Service of Summons to Sarah Poetter………………………………………. 8
Exhibit 3- Retainer for Legal Services and Power of Attorney- Hershey………………………. 11
Exhibit 4- Email from Gary regarding substitution of attorney- December 21, 2021………….. 16
Exhibit 5- Substitution of Attorney……………………………………………………………… 19
Exhibit 6- Case Management Statement- Hershey………………………………………………22
Exhibit 7- Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel- Hershey…………………28
Exhibit 8- Order granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel……………………… 31
Exhibit 9- Forged Contingent Fee Retainer Agreement ………………………………………… 34
Exhibit 10- Gary’s Direct Admission of Forgery- October 28, 2022……………………………39
Exhibit 11- Case Management Statement- Gary………………………………………………… 42
Exhibit 12- Plaintiff instructed to file First Amended Complaint before Case Management
Hearing …………………………………………………………………………………. 50
Exhibit 13- Proof of Service & Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint………..…54
Exhibit 14- Judgment Re Dismissal & Notice of Entry of Judgment……………………………63
Exhibit 15- Declaration of Gary Carlin and Steve Hercules regarding mistakes………………. 67
Exhibit 16- Minute Order Striking Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint- September 22,
2022 …………………………………………………………………………………….. 72
Exhibit 17- Court Reservation Receipt for Motion to Take Judicial Notice & Motion to
Take Judicial Notice ……………………………………………………………………. 74
Exhibit 18- Minute Order Denying Motion to Report Fraud- October 27, 2022 ………………. 76
Exhibit 19- Minute Order Denying Motion to File First Amended Complaint- October 31,
2022 …………………………………………………………………………………….. 78
Exhibit 20- Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant……………80
Exhibit 21- Minute Order Scheduling Ex Parte Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious
Litigant ………………………………………………………………………………….. 83
Exhibit 22- Minute Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Kleifield- December
2 / 197
9, 2022 ………………………………………………………………………………….. 85
Exhibit 23- Tentative Ruling- July 14, 2022……………………………………………………. 88
Exhibit 24- Minute Order- September22, 2022………………………..………………………. 92
Exhibit 25- Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint ……………………………………… 94
Exhibit 26- Defendant’s Notice of Motion & Motion for Summary Judgment ………………. 103
Exhibit 27- Case Management Statement- July 14, 2022………………………………………106
Exhibit 28- Kaiser denying Plaintiff leave- January 29, 2021…………………………………112
Exhibit 29- Notice of Case Reassignment…………………………………………………….. 116
Exhibit 30- Minute Order regarding TRO Proceedings- April 21, 2022………………………121
Exhibit 31- Minute Order granting Stay of Discovery- February 16, 2023……………………124
Exhibit 32- Minute Order denying Ex Parte Application for Protective Order- March 9,
2023 …………………………………………………………………………………… 128
Exhibit 33- Tentative Ruling on Motion for Sanctions- March 10, 2023 …………………….. 131
Exhibit 34-Minute Order Striking Cases off Calendar-March 17, 2023………………………135
Exhibit 35- Minute Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery Sanctions & Motion
to Dismiss- March 28, 2023 ……………………………………………………………137
Exhibit 36- Minute Order rescheduling hearings -April 11, 2023…………………………….. 152
Exhibit 37- Minute Order striking Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify- April 26,
2023……………………………………………………………………………………. 156
Exhibit 38- Order Striking Statement of Disqualification…………………………………….. 158
Exhibit 39- Notice of Ruling: Re Motion to Dismiss…………………………………………. 165
Exhibit 40- Defendant Ordered to pay $10,000 security- May 9, 2023 ………………………. 168
Exhibit 41- Minute Order Striking Plaintiff’s Second Statement of Disqualification- May 22,
2023 …………………………………………………………………………………… 170
Exhibit 42- Order Striking Second Statement of Disqualification…………………………….. 172
Exhibit 43- SCPMG objection to Judge Small Disqualification ………………………………. 178
Exhibit 44- Plaintiff’s response to first order striking verified statement ………………………183
Exhibit 45- Rebuttal to second order striking verified statement……………………………… 190
3 / 197
Exhibit 1
Gary’s letter referencing SCPMG
December 21, 2021
4 / 197
5 / 197
6 / 197
Exhibit 2
Proof of Service of Summons to Sarah
Poetter
7 / 197
8 / 197
9 / 197
Exhibit 3
Retainer for Legal Services and Power
of Attorney- Hershey
10 / 197
11 / 197
12 / 197
13 / 197
14 / 197
Exhibit 4
Email from Gary regarding
substitution of attorney- December 21,
2021
15 / 197
16 / 197
17 / 197
Exhibit 5
Substitution of Attorney
18 / 197
19 / 197
20 / 197
Exhibit 6
Case Management Statement- Hershey
21 / 197
22 / 197
23 / 197
24 / 197
25 / 197
26 / 197
Exhibit 7
Notice of Motion and Motion to be
Relieved as Counsel- Hershey
27 / 197
28 / 197
29 / 197
Exhibit 8
Order granting Attorney’s Motion to
be Relieved as Counsel
30 / 197
31 / 197
32 / 197
Exhibit 9
Forged Contingent Fee Retainer
Agreement
33 / 197
34 / 197
35 / 197
36 / 197
37 / 197
Exhibit 10
Gary’s Direct Admission of Forgery-
October 28, 2022
38 / 197
39 / 197
40 / 197
41 / 197
Exhibit 11
Case Management Statement- Gary
42 / 197
43 / 197
44 / 197
45 / 197
46 / 197
47 / 197
48 / 197
Exhibit 12
Plaintiff instructed to file First
Amended Complaint before Case
Management Hearing
49 / 197
50 / 197
51 / 197
52 / 197
Exhibit 13
Proof of Service & Motion for Leave to
File First Amended Complaint
53 / 197
54 / 197
55 / 197
56 / 197
57 / 197
58 / 197
59 / 197
60 / 197
61 / 197
Exhibit 14
Judgment Re Dismissal & Notice of
Entry of Judgment
62 / 197
63 / 197
64 / 197
65 / 197
Exhibit 15
Declaration of Gary Carlin and Steve
Hercules regarding mistakes
66 / 197
67 / 197
68 / 197
69 / 197
70 / 197
Exhibit 16
Minute Order Striking Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint- September 22,
2022
71 / 197
72 / 197
Exhibit 17
Court Reservation Receipt for Motion
to Take Judicial Notice & Motion to
Take Judicial Notice
73 / 197
74 / 197
Exhibit 18
Minute Order Denying Motion to
Report Fraud- October 27, 2022
75 / 197
76 / 197
Exhibit 19
Minute Order Denying Motion to File
First Amended Complaint- October
31, 2022
77 / 197
78 / 197
Exhibit 20
Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion to
Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant
79 / 197
80 / 197
81 / 197
Exhibit 21
Minute Order Scheduling Ex Parte
Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious
Litigant
82 / 197
83 / 197
Exhibit 22
Minute Order denying Plaintiff’s
Motion to Disqualify Judge Kleifield-
December 9, 2022
84 / 197
85 / 197
86 / 197
Exhibit 23
Tentative Ruling- July 14, 2022
87 / 197
88 / 197
89 / 197
90 / 197
Exhibit 24
Minute Order- September22, 2022
91 / 197
92 / 197
Exhibit 25
Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s
Complaint
93 / 197
94 / 197
95 / 197
96 / 197
97 / 197
98 / 197
99 / 197
100 / 197
101 / 197
Exhibit 26
Defendant’s Notice of Motion &
Motion for Summary Judgment
102 / 197
103 / 197
104 / 197
Exhibit 27
Case Management Statement- July 14,
2022
105 / 197
106 / 197
107 / 197
108 / 197
109 / 197
110 / 197
Exhibit 28
Kaiser denying Plaintiff leave-
January 29, 2021
111 / 197
112 / 197
113 / 197
114 / 197
Exhibit 29
Notice of Case Reassignment
115 / 197
116 / 197
117 / 197
118 / 197
119 / 197
Exhibit 30
Minute Order regarding TRO
Proceedings- April 21, 2022
120 / 197
121 / 197
122 / 197
Exhibit 31
Minute Order granting Stay of
Discovery- February 16, 2023
123 / 197
124 / 197
125 / 197
126 / 197
Exhibit 32
Minute Order denying Ex Parte
Application for Protective Order-
March 9, 2023
127 / 197
128 / 197
129 / 197
Exhibit 33
Tentative Ruling on Motion for
Sanctions- March 10, 2023
130 / 197
131 / 197
132 / 197
133 / 197
Exhibit 34
Minute Order Striking Cases off
Calendar- March 17, 2023
134 / 197
135 / 197
Exhibit 35
Minute Order denying Plaintiff’s
Motion for Discovery Sanctions &
Motion to Dismiss- March 28, 2023
136 / 197
137 / 197
138 / 197
139 / 197
140 / 197
141 / 197
142 / 197
143 / 197
144 / 197
145 / 197
146 / 197
147 / 197
148 / 197
149 / 197
150 / 197
Exhibit 36
Minute Order rescheduling hearings –
April 11, 2023
151 / 197
152 / 197
153 / 197
154 / 197
Exhibit 37
Minute Order striking Plaintiff’s
Motion to Disqualify- April 26, 2023
155 / 197
156 / 197
Exhibit 38
Order Striking Statement of
Disqualification
157 / 197
158 / 197
159 / 197
160 / 197
161 / 197
162 / 197
163 / 197
Exhibit 39
Notice of Ruling: Re Motion to Dismiss
164 / 197
165 / 197
166 / 197
Exhibit 40
Defendant Ordered to pay $10,000
security- May 9, 2023
167 / 197
168 / 197
Exhibit 41
Minute Order Striking Plaintiff’s
Second Statement of Disqualification-
May 22, 2023
169 / 197
170 / 197
Exhibit 42
Order Striking Second Statement of
Disqualification
171 / 197
172 / 197
173 / 197
174 / 197
175 / 197
176 / 197
Exhibit 43
SCPMG objection to Judge Small
Disqualification
177 / 197
178 / 197
179 / 197
180 / 197
181 / 197
Exhibit 44
Plaintiff’s response to first order
striking verified statement
182 / 197
1
RESPONSE TO ORDER STRIKING STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION; VERIFIED
ANSWER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Esther Tendo Atam
13621 Arcturus Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
Natashchan1@yahoo.com
Plaintiff in Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ESTHER TENDO ATAM,
Plaintiff
vs.
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS,
ET AL.,
Defendants
Case No.: 21STCV41538 [Related to Case no.
22STCV37929]
Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Michael
Small, Department 57
RESPONSE TO ORDER STRIKING
STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION;
VERIFIED ANSWER
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ESTHER TENDO ATAM, pro se, and files this Response to
Order Striking Statement of Disqualification; Verified Answer. In response thereof, Plaintiff
states as follows:
i. Plaintiff’s Motion fully met the threshold under Section 170.6.
The Judge states that the language in Plaintiff’s motion and updated Affidavit contains
language that suggests a statement of disqualification for cause, pursuant to Section 170.3. On
the contrary, Plaintiff’s request to disqualify the judge was not brought under section 170.3 but
was brought under section 170.6. Plaintiff asserts that her motion and affidavit were in strict
adherence to the applicable law. According to CA Civ Pro Code § 170.6 (2) (2021), “[a] party to
… an action or proceeding may establish this prejudice by an oral or written motion without
183 / 197
2
RESPONSE TO ORDER STRIKING STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION; VERIFIED
ANSWER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
prior notice supported by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, or an oral statement
under oath, that the judge, … before whom the action or proceeding is pending, or to whom it is
assigned, is prejudiced against a party … or the interest of the party …so that the party …
cannot, or believes that he or she cannot, have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the
judge, ….”
Plaintiff submitted a written motion and an affidavit clearly depicting how Judge Small
has participated in curtailing Plaintiff’s rights through not only making erroneous orders, but
also acquiescing to the fraud that has been committed in the case since its inception. It
follows; Judge Small’s statements regarding Plaintiff’s arguments under Section 170.6 are given
in bad faith.
ii. Plaintiff’s motion and affidavit were not untimely
Judge Small has been aware of the fraud in this case. He has also been aware of the
Defendant’s determined efforts to ensure Plaintiff does not access justice, which efforts include
filing frivolous and bad faith motions/filings against Plaintiff. Further, Judge Small is aware that
every order carried out since September 19, 2022, is based on falsehood and fraud – done by his
predecessor judge Steven Klefield.
However, Judge Small failed to check the fraud, and to sanction Defendant for impeding
Plaintiff’s efforts to prosecute the case. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify
the judge was timely.
iii. The Statement is not based on mere opinions
The judge further claims that Plaintiff’s statement is based on her opinions about the
judge. Again, nothing can be further from the truth. Plaintiff has adduced pertinent evidence,
documenting in detail the prolonged fraud and bad faith in this case, and how the Judge has
turned a blind eye to the injustices that are occasioned against Plaintiff in this case.
For instance, Plaintiff filed an updated affidavit containing about 68 pages of evidence.
Judge Small brushes away said evidence by stating that they are unauthenticated. It is absurd and
184 / 197
3
RESPONSE TO ORDER STRIKING STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION; VERIFIED
ANSWER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
illogical for the judge to make such averments because Plaintiff has duly served subpoenas to
respective parties, who would testify on said evidence and/or facts. Sadly, Judge Small vacated
future hearings in which such individuals would testify on the facts in the evidence adduced by
Plaintiff. For instance, as Judge Small vacated the hearings in Department 26, the only hearing
on docket in that case was a Case Management Hearing, which was scheduled for March 28,
2023. The hearing was initially docketed for April 10, 2023- the same day for which Plaintiff had
subpoenaed the psychologist and the other SCPMG Defendants. The said Case Management
hearing clearly presented fraudulent RN records produced by Kaiser. 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.
It follows; Plaintiff’s averments in support of the disqualification of Judge Small are not
mere conjectures but are facts validly supported by evidence.
iv. The Statement was duly served
Judge Small states that Plaintiff failed to properly effect service of the papers seeking
disqualification. Plaintiff vehemently opposes the judge’s averments. The judge applies the
wrong law in making his statement. Notably, the judge is relying, and quoting, section 170.3. As
already stated above, Plaintiff’s request to disqualify the judge was not brought under section
170.3 but was brought under section 170.6.
The judge’s statement regarding service is therefore incompetent to the said extent.
Plaintiff’s assertions are not mere disagreements with the judge’s rulings
The judge further holds that Plaintiff’s basis for disqualification is her disagreement with
the judge’s rulings. Plaintiff vehemently disagrees with the judge’s averment. The facts in this
case show that a reasonable person will have doubts as to the bias of the judge.
185 / 197
4
RESPONSE TO ORDER STRIKING STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION; VERIFIED
ANSWER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s motion, the updated affidavit, and all documents filed in this case clearly
outline facts, which show how the judge acquiesced Defendant’s frivolity. The facts further show
how the judge participated in curtailing Plaintiff’s rights by: erroneously terming Plaintiff’s
motion(s) frivolous; failing to acknowledge that Plaintiff’s motion was in compliance with
applicable law; erroneously holding that Plaintiff was correctly termed a vexatious litigant;
erroneously stating that the case was already disposed yet the docket showed upcoming hearings;
threatening to fine Plaintiff if she continued exercising her constitutional right to seek justice;
failing to sanction Defendant for abuse of the discovery process; denying Plaintiff her right to a
fair trial, when he sought to dismiss the case on a procedural technicality; failing to note that
BRN illegally revoked Plaintiff’s license; failing to protect Plaintiff from Defendant’s frivolous
conduct; covering up for Judge Kleifield’s blameworthy conduct; failing to acknowledge the
fraud that was committed by Plaintiff’s former attorneys; and failing to note resulting damage of
the ongoing fraud on Plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
Some of the Judge’s administrative responsibilities include “diligently discharge the
judge’s administrative responsibilities impartially, on the basis of merit, without bias or
prejudice, free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
integrity of the judiciary.” See Canon 3C(1). Further, Canon 3B(8) provides that a judge shall
manage the courtroom in a manner that provides all litigants the opportunity to have their matters
fairly adjudicated in accordance with the law.”
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that Judge Small has drastically failed to manage his
court in a manner that provides Plaintiff access to justice. Notably, the judge’s conduct has
hampered the hopes of Plaintiff to get legal redress, which fact is sufficient to disqualify the
judge. Contrary to the society’s expectations of Judge Small as a public servant, the judge has
watered down Plaintiff’s public confidence in the judiciary. It is therefore completely unjust for
Judge Small to be allowed to be the arbiter in this case.
186 / 197
5
RESPONSE TO ORDER STRIKING STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION; VERIFIED
ANSWER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: 05/02/2023
Respectfully submitted,
_ ______ _____
ESTHER TENDO ATAM
187 / 197
188 / 197
Exhibit 45
Rebuttal to second order striking
verified statement
189 / 197
REBUTTALS TO JUDGE SMALL
Plaintiff files this surplus document as an Exhibit in further support of her Rebuttal to Judge
Small’s Order striking Plaintiff’s Statement of Disqualification. Through this document, Plaintiff
seeks to debunk all the statements of the Judge. Plaintiff states as follows:
i. Judge Small’s Order Striking Second Statement of Disqualification
JUDGE SMALL’S STATEMENTS PLAINTIFF’S REBUTTALS
Seven days after this court struck
plaintiff’s first statement of
disqualification for cause (“First
Statement”), Plaintiff Esther Atam filed a
second, repetitive motion to disqualify the
assigned judge (“second Statement).
Plaintiff asserts that nothing precluded her from
filing her second Statement.
Besides, the judge already stands disqualified for
filing the order striking the second statement late. It
is a requirement for the judge to strike the statement
within the 10-day period prescribed in section
170.3, subdivision (c)(3) for filing an answer.
Thereafter, the judge is deemed disqualified and has
no power to act in the case. Lewis v. Superior Court
(1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1101, 1104 [ 244 Cal.Rptr.
328].
Plaintiff sent her second statement on May 3, 2023.
The judge was therefore mandated to file the order
striking the statement by May 13, 2023. However,
the judge issued the order on May 22, 2023.
Accordingly, the judge is deemed disqualified, and
has no jurisdiction over this case.
For the reasons discusses here in, the court
strikes the Second Statement pursuant to
code of civil procedure section 170.4,
subdivision c (3) and vacates the May 24,
203 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to
disqualify.
Under section 170.3, subdivision (c)(1), the
statement must be filed at the “earliest practicable
opportunity” after discovery of the facts
constituting the grounds for disqualification.
Thereafter, the challenged judge may consent or file
an answer within 10 days of the filing or service,
whichever is later. The question of his
disqualification must be determined by another
judge agreed on by the parties or, if they are
unable to agree, by a judge selected by the
chairperson of the Judicial Council. (§ 170.3,
subd. (c)(5).) The judge deciding the question may
decide it on the basis of the statement of
disqualification and the answer or he may set the
matter for hearing. (§ 170.3, subd. (c)(6).)
Here, first, it was pertinent to file the second
statement. The second statement was filed because,
per 170.6, judge did not need to file a verified
answer but he did, and his response (see verified
answer) warranted a second statement of
disqualification. In the verified answer, judge Small
clearly stated, that Plaintiff’s new case is subject to
civil code of procedure for vexatious litigant, even
though it was filed prior to being named a vexatious
litigant and a minute order issued on
04/11/2023, clearly noted that, Plaintiff’s status as
a vexatious litigant will be addressed for continued
litigation. This ground itself amounted to additional
facts that warranted the second statement of
disqualification.
190 / 197
Next, the Judge’s order is null and void because it
was filed beyond the ten days prescribed by the
statute.
Lastly, the second statement should have been
determined by a different judge as opposed to Judge
Small. The foresaid statute clearly provides that a
separate judge should determine the matter, at the
stage where it is at the moment. It follows; the mere
reason that Judge Small still handles this matter is
sufficient ground to overturn the Judge’s order.
Relevant procedure history – Judgment
entered against plaintiff
On September 19, 2022, the Honorable
Steven J. Kleified judgement entered in
favor of defendant in this action.
Notice of the entry of judgement was filed
on September 21, 2022. Thus, this case has
concluded and the deadline to appeal has
expired.
Plaintiff disputes the alleged dismissal of the case. It
beats logic why a case may be deemed dismissed,
yet the court docket shows future hearings. In the
instant case, after the September 19th decision, the
Court went ahead to consider not only Plaintiff’s
applications, but also Defendant’s applications, and
proceeded to docket hearings for the issues arising
thereof. It follows; the said dismissal of the case
does not make sense.
Next, Judge Small vacated and consolidated the
proceedings in Plaintiff’s new case
(22STCV37929), which is still pending.
Interestingly, Judge Small has made himself the lead
judge in the case. It is notable that the new case is
not disposed and it was filed prior to being named a
vexatious litigant. The judge’s actions are evidently
replete with bad faith, and ulterior motive to harass
Plaintiff, and to obstruct her access to justice.
After judgement was entered, Plaintiff
continued to file numerous pleadings, such
that on December 22, 2022, Judge
Kleifield entered a prefiling orders order
declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.
Judge Kleifield’s last day on the bench was
January 20, 2023, and on February 8, 2023,
the undersigned assumed his caseload,
including this case. Since this matter was
reassigned, Plaintiff has continued to file
pleadings including two recent motions to
disqualify undersigned.
Plaintiff won’t stop emphasizing how she never met
the threshold for a vexatious litigant. The California
legislature adopted the Vexatious Litigant Statute in
1963 to ease the “unreasonable burden placed upon
the courts by groundless litigation.” Wolfgram v.
Wells Fargo Bank, 53 Cal.App.4th 43, 61
Cal.Rptr.2d 694, 698 (1997). It would be absurd for
the Court to hold that Plaintiff has presented
groundless litigation, yet the Court itself has denied
determining Plaintiff’s case on its merits. Since the
inception of all of Plaintiff’s cases, the Court has
never considered the allegations in the Complaints.
The Court has only concentrated on procedural
issues.
Further, Plaintiff had filed a motion to take judicial
notice that was on docket for 08/23/2022. A case
management hearing was also on the docket for
09/29/2022. But on 09/19/2022, Judge Kleifield
vacated CM hearing for 09/29/2022 and hearing to
take judicial notice set for 08/23/2022. The first
amended complaint filed 07/27/2022, was also
stricken. Then, an ex-parte hearing was filed for Nov
3, 2022. Plaintiff filed a continuance to that hearing
due to severe chest pains from trauma caused by
defendant, requiring leave to be evaluated by
emergency room physician. The hearing to deem
Plaintiff vexatious was moved to December 9, 2022,
at which time it was granted.
191 / 197
First statement of Disqualification
On March 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the first
Statement, accompanied by an affidavit by
Plaintiff. On April 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed
an updated affidavit. The First Statement
was not personally served.
The first motion was a peremptory challenge which
was denied as untimely and did not need to be
personally served.
On April 26, 2023, this Court issued a
written order striking the First Statement
because it was untimely and did not state
legal grounds for disqualification. In the
strike order, Plaintiff was advised
that determination of the question of the
disqualification is not an appealable order
and may be reviewed only by a writ of
mandate from court of Appeal sought
within 10 days of notice to the parties of
the decision. (Code Civ. Proc., &170.3,
subd (d). Plaintiff did not seek review by
the court of Appeal.
If a judge refuses to recuse himself or herself, “the
question of disqualification shall be heard and
determined by another judge agreed upon by all the
parties who have appeared or, in the event they are
unable to agree within five days of notification of
the judge’s answer, by a judge selected by the
chairperson of the Judicial Council…” See § 170.3,
subd. (c)(5).
The mere fact that Judge Small presided over the
matter of his dismissal, where he was, by statute,
obligated to allow a different judge preside, speaks
to the validity of the written order.
Second statement of Disqualification
On May 3, 2023, just seven days after this
Court struck the First Statement, Plaintiff
served and filed a second statement. The
second statement is repetitive of the First
Statement in that it relies on the same
untimely claims, cites disagreement with
the same court rulings, and repeats the
same opinions and conclusions about the
assigned judge, the previously assigned
judge, other judicial officers and Plaintiff’s
prior counsel.
The second statement is not repetitive. Under
section 170.3, subdivision (c)(1), the statement must
be filed at the “earliest practicable opportunity”
after discovery of the facts constituting the
grounds for disqualification.
Here, the judge made rulings in Plaintiffs new case,
pursuant to civ code of procedures for vexatious
litigant. It is notable that the said case was filed
before Plaintiff was deemed vexatious. The
foregoing therefore amounts to a discovery of facts
that justify the second statement. Plaintiff has
submitted evidence that demonstrated fraud and per
the civ codes for procedure that describe a vexatious
litigant, Plaintiff clearly does not fall in that
category.
As the second statement is repetitive of the
claims raised in the First Statement, it is
stricken on that basis (Code Civ. Proc., $
170.4, subd © (3).) Additionally, to the
extent the Second Statement is based on
events that occurred many months ago, it
is stricken as untimely. (Code Civ. Proc.,
& 170.4, subd. (b).). Finally, as the
allegations raised in the Second Statement
do not state legal grounds for
disqualification, the Second Statement is
stricken pursuant to Civ Procedure Section
170.4, subdivision (b).
Judge Small contradicts himself. In the hearing
to dismiss the case on 05/09/2023, Judge
Small was not able to dismiss the case pursuant
to Civ. Proc. & 391 (b). – because this did not
apply to Plaintiff. Civ. Proc. & 391 (b) provides in
pertinent part that: “[i]f, after hearing evidence on
the motion, the court determines that the litigation
has no merit and has been filed for the purposes of
harassment or delay, the court shall order the
litigation dismissed. This subdivision shall only
apply to litigation filed in a court of this state by a
vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order
pursuant to Section 391.7 who was represented by
counsel at the time the litigation was filed and who
became in propria persona after the withdrawal of
his or her attorney.
Instead, he grants defendants 391 (a), which is
contradictory. The said section provides in
pertinent part that: indeed, in any litigation pending
in any court of this state, at any time until final
judgment is entered, a defendant may move the
court, upon notice and hearing, for an order
requiring the plaintiff to furnish security or for an
order dismissing the litigation pursuant
to subdivision (b) of Section 391.3. The motion for
192 / 197
an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security
shall be based upon the ground, and supported by a
showing, that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and
that there is not a reasonable probability that he or
she will prevail in the litigation against the moving
defendant.
Plaintiff asserts that since the matter has never been
decided on its merits since its inception, no
determination has been sufficiently made to satisfy
the allegation that Plaintiff has no reasonable
probability that she will prevail in the case.
A party Cannot Submit Repetitive
Statements of Disqualification
A party may file no more than one
statement of disqualification unless facts
suggesting new grounds for
disqualification are first learned of or arise
after the first statement was filed. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 170.4, subd. (c)(3).)
The second statement is not repetitive. Under
section 170.3, subdivision (c)(1), the statement must
be filed at the “earliest practicable opportunity”
after discovery of the facts constituting the
grounds for disqualification.
Here, the judge made rulings in Plaintiffs new case,
pursuant to civ code of procedures for vexatious
litigant. It is notable that the said case was filed
before Plaintiff was deemed vexatious. The
foregoing therefore amounts to a discovery of facts
that justify the second statement. Plaintiff has
submitted evidence that demonstrated fraud and per
the civ codes for procedure that describe a vexatious
litigant, Plaintiff clearly does not fall in that
category.
Repetitive statements of disqualification
shall be stricken by the judge against
whom they are filed. (Id.)
Plaintiff asserts that she is no precluded from filing
additional statements of disqualification. Notably,
the law provides no express limit thereof. “Under
section 170.3, subdivision (c)(1), the statement must
be filed at the “earliest practicable opportunity” after
discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for
disqualification.” See Urias v. Harris Farms, Inc.,
234 Cal.App.3d 415, 422 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)
A party is not entitled to keep repeating
and renewing complaints that the court has
already heard. (People v. Vera (2004) 122
8 Cal.App.4th 970, 980, citing People v.
Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 104.)
It is the policy of the law to favor a hearing on the
merits. Shamblin v. Brattain, 44 Cal.3d 474, 478
(Cal. 1988). Plaintiff asserts that since she filed her
cases, at no point has her case ever been decided on
its merits. The Defendant, in collusion with the
Court, have been opposing Plaintiff’s attempts to
prosecute her case. As a result, thereof, Plaintiff has
been subjected to numerous procedural hurdles that
have shifted the Court’s focus from the merits of the
case.
Here, Plaintiff has filed two statements of
disqualification repeating the same
allegations.
The Court incorporates its April 26, 2023,
Order Striking Statement of
Disqualification into this Order.
As the Second Statement is repetitive of
the First Statement, it is stricken on that
basis.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 170.4, subd. (c)(3).)
The second statement is not repetitive. Under
section 170.3, subdivision (c)(1), the statement must
be filed at the “earliest practicable opportunity”
after discovery of the facts constituting the
grounds for disqualification.
Here, the judge made rulings in Plaintiffs new case,
pursuant to civ code of procedures for vexatious
litigant. It is notable that the said case was filed
before Plaintiff was deemed vexatious. The
foregoing therefore amounts to a discovery of facts
that justify the second statement. Plaintiff has
submitted evidence that demonstrated fraud and per
the civ codes for procedure that describe a vexatious
193 / 197
litigant, Plaintiff clearly does not fall in that
category.
The second statement of disqualification
is untimely
statement of disqualification had been filed at the
“earliest practicable opportunity” and was,
therefore, timely. (Id. at pp. 424-425.)
The Second Statement is based on events
occurring between 2021 and March 2023.
The Judge’s statement is irrelevant. The law
prescribing grounds for disqualification does not set
a time limit for the actions that meet the grounds. It
is therefore immaterial for the judge to allege that
the statement is based on the said events.
Further, the Judge is lying blatantly. It is disastrous
for a judge to misrepresent facts. The judge is aware
that the second statement is based on the Court’s
insistence on the vexatious litigant issue. This is
after the Court dismissed the first statement, and
went on to rely on the vexatious litigation argument.
Clearly, the second statement is based on matters as
recent as the Court’s most recent order.
A statement of disqualification shall be
presented at the earliest practical
opportunity after discovery of the facts
constituting the grounds for
disqualification.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
170.3, subd. (c)(1).)
“The reason for requiring a prompt claim
of bias is that a party should not be allowed
to play fast and loose with the
administration of justice by deliberately
refraining from raising any objection, on
the chance that he might get a favorable
decision, and still be free to urge the
objection as grounds for upsetting an
unfavorable judgment.” (Kearing v.
Superior Court (1955) 45 Cal.2d 440, 446,
internal citation omitted.)
Here, Plaintiff seeks disqualification based
on rulings and hearings that occurred long
ago. As the Second Statement was not
brought at the earliest practical
opportunity, it is stricken as untimely
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 170.4, subdivision (b).
Plaintiff reasserts her arguments above. She
emphasizes that the claim for bias was not untimely.
Besides, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 170.1 et seq, does
not expressly set the time limit for the range of
activities that form grounds of disqualification.
The California Supreme Court has held
that “a trial court’s numerous rulings
against a party – even when erroneous – do
not establish a charge of judicial bias,
especially when they are subject to
review.” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37
Cal.4th 1067, 1112, overruled on other
grounds; see also McEwen v. Occidental
Life Ins. Co. (1916) 172 Cal. 6, 11
[erroneous rulings, even when numerous
and continuous, are not grounds for bias or
prejudice, nor are “judges’ expressions
of opinion uttered in what he conceives to
be the discharge of his judicial duty”].)
“[I]t is not necessary for the party to show that the
judge is biased” or “provide any factual basis for
their claim.” See CCP 170.6; see also Solberg v.
Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182. “Upon a
litigant’s stated belief that a judge is biased, “the
judge loses jurisdiction over the case.” See Id. at 6.
It follows, Plaintiff was only required to point out
the slightest incidence of bias, which she did, to
sufficiently claim the judge’s disqualification.
A party’s remedy for an erroneous ruling is
not a motion to disqualify, but rather
Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify is not based on
motions filed by the Court. The Judge, learned as he
194 / 197
review by appeal or writ. (See Ryan v.
Welte (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 888, 893
[“[A] wrong opinion on the law of a case
does not disqualify a judge, nor is it
evidence of bias or prejudice”].) Thus,
Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court
rulings is insufficient to disqualify a judge.
is, needs to look at the bigger picture and notice that
the motion was based on the judge’s conduct
throughout the proceeding of the case. Nowhere in
Plaintiff’s motion did she specifically argue that her
ground for disqualification was solely based on a
particular ruling or motion of the judge. Instead,
Plaintiff outlined the facts showing the judge’s
blameworthy conduct.
Plaintiff’s Opinions and Conclusions are
Insufficient to Disqualify a Judge
Plaintiff seeks disqualification based on
her opinions and conclusions about the
assigned judge’s alleged bias.
Plaintiff’s opinions and conclusions are
insufficient to disqualify a judge. Code of
Civil
Procedure section 170.3, subdivision
(c)(1) requires the disqualification
statement to set forth “the facts
constituting the grounds” for
disqualification of the judge.
Plaintiff’s grounds for disqualification are not based
on mere opinions, conjectures, or conclusions. They
are based on provable facts that showed how the
Court condoned the fraud committed by the
Defendant, and how the Court failed to address the
Defendants’ blatant violations of the law.
Mere conclusions of the pleader are
insufficient. (In re Morelli (1970) 11
Cal.App. 3d 819, 843; Urias v. Harris
Farms, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal. App.3d 415,
426.)
Plaintiff reasserts the argument made above, that her
grounds were not based on mere conclusions.
A party’s belief as to a judge’s bias and
prejudice is irrelevant and not controlling
in a motion to disqualify for cause, as the
test applied is an objective one. (United
Farm Workers of America v. Superior
Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 97, 104;
Leland Stanford Junior University v.
Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d
403, 408 [“the litigants’ necessarily
partisan views [do] not provide the
applicable frame of reference”].)
Plaintiff has adduced pertinent evidence,
documenting in detail the prolonged fraud and bad
faith in this case, and how the Judge has turned a
blind eye to the injustices that are occasioned against
Plaintiff in this case. For instance, Plaintiff filed an
updated affidavit containing about 68 pages of
evidence. Judge Small brushed away said evidence
by stating that they are unauthenticated. It is absurd
and illogical for the judge to make such averments
because Plaintiff has duly served subpoenas to
respective parties, who would testify on said
evidence and/or facts. Sadly, Judge Small vacated
future hearings in which such individuals would
testify on the facts in the evidence adduced by
Plaintiff.
The foregoing example clearly shows that Plaintiff’s
claims against the judge are not merely based on
Plaintiff’s opinions and/or belief. A reasonable
person will have doubts as to the bias of the judge.
The facts and circumstances prompting a
challenge for cause must be evaluated in
the context of the entire proceeding and not
based solely upon isolated conduct or
remarks. (Flier v. Superior Court (1994) 23
Cal. App.4th 165, 171-172.) Thus,
Plaintiff’s opinions and conclusions are
insufficient for judicial disqualification.
The conduct forming grounds for disqualification
are not isolated instances. Instead, they reflect a
pertinent part of the fraud that is preeminent in the
proceeding of the case. Notably, the facts show how
the judge participated in curtailing Plaintiff’s rights
by: erroneously terming Plaintiff’s motion(s)
frivolous; failing to acknowledge that Plaintiff’s
motion was in compliance with applicable law;
erroneously holding that Plaintiff was correctly
termed a vexatious litigant; erroneously stating that
the case was already disposed yet the docket showed
upcoming hearings; threatening to fine Plaintiff if
she continued exercising her constitutional right to
195 / 197
seek justice; failing to sanction Defendant for abuse
of the discovery process; denying Plaintiff her right
to a fair trial, when he sought to dismiss the case on
a procedural technicality; failing to note that BRN
illegally revoked Plaintiff’s license; failing to
protect Plaintiff from Defendant’s frivolous
conduct; covering up for Judge Kleifield’s
blameworthy conduct; failing to acknowledge the
fraud that was committed by Plaintiff’s former
attorneys; and failing to note resulting damage of the
ongoing fraud on Plaintiff.
Miscellaneous Claims
The Second Statement alleges misconduct
by Plaintiff’s prior counsel, defendant,
defendant’s attorneys and other judicial
officers. Such allegations are irrelevant to
disqualification of the judge.
Again, the judge repeats the statements he already
made. It is evident that the judge’s reasoning is
deficient, which is evidenced by the judge’s empty
reliance on baseless points of fact. Plaintiff asserts
that the allegations of misconduct by Plaintiff’s prior
counsel, defendant, defendant’s attorneys, and
judicial officers clearly shows how the
interconnection of the facts. Further, the foregoing
shows how Judge Small is acquiescing to the
injustices that have been committed against
Plaintiff.
A judge has a duty to decide when not to
be disqualified
A judge has both an ethical and statutory
duty to decide cases where, as here, there
are no for disqualification. Code Ju Ethics,
canon 3B(8); Code Civ. Proc., § 170; Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 10.608.)
The judge is misstating the law. Cal. Code Civ.
Proc. § 170.1 et seq already provides the grounds
upon which a judge shall be disqualified. The
wording used in the said law shows no place for the
judge to exercise his option. Notably, the section
provides in pertinent part that: “(a) A judge shall be
disqualified if any one or more of the following are
true:” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 170.1. The use of the
word shall leaves no room for the judge to decide
whether to disqualify or not.
Conclusion
Since Plaintiff’s Second Statement is
repetitive of Plaintiff’s prior statement, is
based on untimely allegations, and does
not state legal grounds for disqualification
for cause, it is ordered stricken pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure section 170.4,
subdivisions (b) and (c)(3). The Court
vacates the May 24, 2023, hearing on
Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify.
Plaintiff has already demonstrated how her second
statement is not repetitive.
It follows; this action by the judge amounts to an
abuse of the Court’s discretion. “The appropriate
test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court
exceeded the bounds of reason.” Shamblin v.
Brattain, 44 Cal.3d 474, 478 (Cal. 1988). Clearly,
the Court abused its discretion.
Plaintiff is ordered to file no further
statements of disqualification in this case
raising legal or factual grounds set forth in
the First or Second Statements unless and
until she successfully files and prevails in
a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure 170.3,
subdivision (d) concerning these
determinations of the question of
disqualification. Violation of this order
may result in the imposition of money
sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 177.5.
The parties are reminded that the
determination of the question of the
disqualification is not an appealable order
and may be reviewed only by a writ of
mandate from the Court of Appeal sought
This action by the judge violates plaintiff’s right to
a fair hearing. The right to a fair hearing is a
constitutionally protected right, which guarantees
the right to be heard before an impartial court.
196 / 197
within 10 days of written notice to the
parties of the decision. (Code Civ. Proc., §
170.3, subd. (d).)
197 / 197

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 )