Esther Tendo Atam

13621 Arcturus Ave.

Gardena, CA 90249

Plaintiff in Pro Per











Case No.: 21STCV41538 [Related to Case no. 22STCV37929]


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




COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ESTHER TENDO ATAM, pro se, and files this Rebuttal to Defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff states as follows:



Defendants join in the arguments of the California Board of Registered Nursing and associated non-parties raised in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion and incorporate them by reference as though fully set forth herein.

First, the Defendants must realize that a trial court has wide discretion to grant leave to amend a complaint. See Atkinson v. Elk Corp. 39 (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761. A court abuses that discretion if it refuses to grant leave to amend. Id.


Secondly, the Opposition that the Defendants refer to is not, and should not be part of the Court’s record. The BRN cited the wrong case number, which clearly meant they were addressing the wrong court, in the wrong case. Notably, the BRN’s Opposition cited case 22STCV37929, which was filed on 12/05/2022. The opposition listed the date the action was filed as 11/10/2021.


Besides, the BRN have not even been served summons in the case. Therefore, the Defendants joining the BRN in opposing Plaintiff’s motion speaks to collusion between the Defendants and BRN.


Next, the BRN filed their Opposition late. They provided no explanation for their late filing. Therefore, the Defendants’ reliance on the BRN’s opposition is futile.


Further, the BRN’s opposition (which the Defendants refer to) only contains arguments relevant to the BRN, and not any other party.


Next, Defendants rely on assertions that Plaintiff sufficiently challenged. It is interesting to note that in their objection, they claimed that Plaintiff reasonably knew that she was going to be placed on the vexatious litigants list, yet she went ahead and filed this new case prior to being subject to prefiling orders, therefore they are objecting to being added to plaintiff’s new complaint.


Notably, it is those same assertions that the BRN used to issue a Section 8 Order for Mental Examination, to which Plaintiff entered a timely defense, although the BRN lied and argued that Plaintiff had entered no defense. The AG then moved to revoke Plaintiff’s license on grounds that Plaintiff failed to enter a timely defense and refused to comply with Section 820 Order for Mental Examination. This is a blatant lie as Plaintiff not only entered a timely defense, but she also made a valid complaint to the AG and BRN regarding the mental state of their chosen doctor and provided facts to show that he appeared confused. No steps were taken to acknowledge nor address the issue of the confused neuro psychiatrist attempting to evaluate Plaintiff. If a person does not remember the date, month, and cannot tell the time nor knows his phone number, that is reasonable grounds to raise alarm.


BRN and Kaiser continue to embarrass themselves and have been shown to be compulsive liars. This speaks to the mental states of the individuals handling this case. Of course, colluding with the BRN backfired as they did not anticipate Plaintiff to stand her ground and were expecting this case to have disappeared months ago. It is Plaintiff’s observation that the Defendants will join BRN in opposition because they have both been caught in a lie.


It is Plaintiff’s further assertion that no matter how many lies, manipulation and corruption has occurred with this case; the truth remains the same. Plaintiff has a stella work history and neither Kaiser nor the BRN can show one piece of documented evidence that Plaintiff was unable to perform her RN duties and it was reasonably due to a mental illness. It is therefore incomprehensible for Defendants to fight so hard to impose mental illness on Plaintiff. Anger is a healthy emotion and response to incompetent individuals who abuse their positions to bully, intimidate and destroy lives just because they can. They have exposed themselves for who they truly are.



On or about May 9, 2023, the Court issued an order granting Defendants’ Motion to Require Plaintiff to Post a Security, which was made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 391.1.

First, the Defendant’s attorney is lying. “[A]n intentionally false statement made by an attorney to a court clearly constitutes a contempt of court.” See Vaughn v. Municipal Court (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 348, 358 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 575].


The court made no such order on May 9th. (Please see the minute order on May 9th). The court clearly instructed defendants to post a 10,000 security within 30 days of the May 9th hearing, to which defendants failed to comply.


Next, the order was not pursuant to civil code 391.1. This is a blatant lie by defendants as they continue to demonstrate that they are nothing but shape shifters and liars. Besides, California Code of Civil Procedure 391.1 is a REQUEST not an ORDER.


On February 16th, 2023, Kaiser filed an ex parte request to stay discovery and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to code of civil procedure 391.3(B) or alternatively an order compelling plaintiff to furnish security pursuant to code of civil procedure 391.3(A), or alternatively an order shortening time to hear defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

On March 17, 2023, Judge Small also vacated all hearings in this instant case, including the May 9th hearing to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, and said action automatically voided the court order issued on February 16th, 2023, to stay discovery until after the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss on May 9th.


The motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint was then placed off docket with no reset date, from March 17th, 2023, to March 28th, 2023. May 9th then became available and plaintiff reserved May 9th for a hearing on sanctions. Plaintiff then filed a motion for sanctions in department 26, which was accepted by the court and was docketed for May 9th, 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.


With that in mind, Minute Order on February 16, 2023, expressly asked both parties to address in their briefs the applicability of CCP section 391.3(b) where Plaintiff was not subject to a prefiling order at the time Plaintiff initiated the instant action. Defendants were also asked to make clear in their moving papers whether for purposes of CCP section 391.3(a) if they are requesting the Court to make an independent finding that Plaintiff a vexatious litigant pursuant to CCP sections 391(b)(1), 391(b)(2), 391(b)(3), 391(b)(4), or 391(b)(5), or instead if Defendant believes that Judge Kleifield’s declaration of Plaintiff’s vexatious litigant status is sufficient and obviates the need for this Court to make any independent findings as to whether Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant.


It follows; Defendants never filed any motion pursuant to 391.1 to demonstrate how plaintiff is a vexatious litigant.


It is also notable that in their application for an order pursuant to 391.3 (b) or in the alternative 391.3 (a) (filed on February 16, 2023), Kaiser made the following statements: Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant, and her complaint has no merits; Plaintiff will not prevail in her cause of action for defamation; Plaintiffs’ defamation claim fails to state facts. Sufficient to state a cause of action; Kaiser is immune from plaintiffs’ defamation complaint under civil code 47 (c); Plaintiff will not prevail on her cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress; Plaintiff will not prevail on her cause of action for fraud on the court; Plaintiff must be ordered to furnish security because there is no reasonable probability that plaintiff will prevail against defendants.


In response to the foregoing statements, Plaintiff asserts that she was not subject to prefiling order when this case was filed. Further, none of the foregoing statements demonstrate that she is a vexatious litigant as provided in the statute for vexatious litigant pursuant to CCP sections 391(b)(1), 391(b)(2), 391(b)(3), 391(b)(4), or 391(b)(5).


Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated how defendants misrepresented facts to Judge Kleifield, to which he then issued an order deeming a plaintiff vexatious litigant.


Kaiser also argues that case 21STCV41538 was disposed July 14, 2022 yet Plaintiff has continued to file objectively baseless and frivolous motions on disposed case, all of which seek to relitigate issues that have been resolved or otherwise obtain redress not recognized by this Court. This is NOT TRUE. The case status clearly shows, action sited as ‘other’, (not disposed).

As such, Code of Civil Procedure section 391.6 provides: Except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 391.3, when a motion pursuant to Section 391.1 is filed prior to trial the litigation is stayed, and the moving defendant need not plead, until 10 days after the motion shall have been denied, or if granted, until 10 days after the required security has been furnished and the moving defendant given written notice thereof.


When a motion pursuant to Section 391.1 is made at any time thereafter, the litigation shall be stayed for such period after the denial of the motion or the furnishing of the required security as the court shall determine.

Plaintiff maintains that no motion pursuant to California Civil Code of procedure section 391.1 was ever filed by defendants. Defendants’ reliance on this argument is therefore futile.


Besides, the Court had already ordered Defendant to post a $10,000 security within 30 days of the May 9th hearing, to which Defendants failed to comply.



As plainly set forth in the foregoing statute, this litigation was stayed upon the filing of Defendants’ motion, and such stay has continued following the court’s order that the Plaintiff furnish security Such stay does not expire unless and until the Plaintiff actually furnishes such security. Plaintiff reiterates her response above. Defendants’ argument that the litigation is stayed is futile because they never filed any motion pursuant to California Civil Code of procedure section 391.1.
Inasmuch as Plaintiff has not yet filed any such security, the stay remains in place, and may still be in effect at the time set for the hearing of Plaintiff’s motion. If the stay remains in effect, Defendants respectfully submit that the court may not entertain Plaintiff’s motion. The court should definitely grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file first amended complaint. First, Plaintiff’s motion was filed on 06/07/2023 and Defendants’ opposition ‘joining the BRN, Loretta Melby, and Gillian Friedman’s to oppose plaintiffs’ motion is late. Defendants should have filed their opposition by June 28, 2023. According to Cal. R. 8.54 (a)(3), any opposition must be served and filed within 15 days from which motion was filed. And “[a] failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” Cal. R. 8.54 (c).


Next, since there was never any motion filed pursuant to 391.1, therefore there is no stay to this litigation and the litigation must continue. The BRN revoked plaintiffs license based on fraudulent report sent to them by Kaiser. The assertions made by the BRN forms the basis for this instant case.


Since the BRN has already filed an opposition to be added to the complaint for which they have not yet been summoned, this indicates sinister motives and corruption. The BRN should therefore be added to the complaint, and served summons so they can file an answer to explain their blameworthy conduct. The case must continue.



Dated: ___________

Respectfully submitted,



_  ______                 _____





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 )