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.
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a California corporation; SARAH POETTER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants |
Case No.: 21STCV 41538 [Related to Case no. 22STCV37929]
Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Michael Small, Department 57
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE MICHAEL SMALL
Date: April 27, 2023 Time: 8:30 a.m. Judge: Hon. Michael Small Dpt.: 57 Reservation ID: 273735548380 |
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ESTHER TENDO ATAM, pro se, and files this Response to Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Michael Small. In response thereof, Plaintiff states as follows:
- This case has not concluded
Defendant’s counsel erroneously states that the case was already dismissed when the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and subsequently entered a judgment of dismissal of the case. The facts of the proceedings, as evidenced in the Court docket, show otherwise. It is undisputable, and it can be proven by the Court Clerk, that after the Court issuing the alleged order(s) dismissing the case, the Court Docket still contained a schedule for future hearings. It is axiomatic that the dismissal of a case would automatically end all hearings in the case. However, here, the Court Docket still showed hearings set for March 28, 2023 (hearing for motion for sanctions), August 9, 2023 (hearing for motion for sanctions and hearing on Motion for Order on Motion for Reconsideration). These hearing dates recorded on the docket are clear and convincing proof that the case was, and still is, live.
Plaintiff’s Updated Affidavit in Support of the Motion to Dismiss Judge Small also provides clear and convincing evidence that the case was disposed fraudulently. Notably, after allegedly dismissing the case, the Court still permitted Defendant to make filings in response to Plaintiff’s motions and deposition subpoenas. For instance, Defendant filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions on December 27, 2022. Also, on March 8, 2023, Defendant filed an Objection to Plaintiff’s Deposition Subpoenas, which motion was duly acknowledged by the Court and was filed.
The foregoing cumulatively show that the case was never dismissed, as Defendant’s counsel wrongly alleges.
- It is never untimely to report, and seek redress for fraud
Defendant’s counsel also attempts to hide behind procedural technicalities to have Plaintiff’s motion dismissed on the ground of time. It is Plaintiff’s contention that the fraud in this case has been continuous hence having no time limit. Indeed, the fraud still continues to the current instance.
It is evident from the Court’s records of the proceedings in this case (and the related case referenced in the caption), that Judge Small is biased and insists on dismissing this case based on fraud. For instance, on March 17, 2023, Judge Small vacated all the pending hearings in Plaintiff’s related case in Department 26. Judge Small’s illegal action is essentially aimed at ensuring Plaintiff never gets redress for the harm that she has undergone as a result of the Defendant’s conduct. For instance, Judge Small’s Order to vacate all pending hearings would therefore mean that all of the future hearings in Department 26 were struck off. It is notable that plaintiff had already made filings with respect to each future hearing. It follows; Plaintiff’s good faith efforts would therefore go to the drain as a result of Judge Small’s decision.
Judge Small’s action in vacating the future hearings in Department 26, and consolidating the two cases, would deny Plaintiff the opportunity to present evidence of fraudulent BRN records that were produced by Kaiser. The Judge also vacated all pending Reservation Ids already reserved by Plaintiff and not even filed with the court. These Reservation Ids included Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 26, and Motion to Disqualify Elaine Lu.
It follows; Judge Small is bent to curtail Plaintiff’s right to approach a fair and impartial court, and seek legal redress. Judge Small is aware that Defendant is liable for drastically harming Plaintiff. Therefore, the Judge appears to cover up Defendant’s blameworthiness by barring Plaintiff’s access to justice. Such conduct should not be permitted in a mature democracy as the United States of America, that is governed by the rule of law. Hence, Judge Small should be disqualified from this case.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court deny Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Small. Plaintiff also prays this Honorable Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify said judge, in the interest of justice. Plaintiff prays for any other Order this Court deems just.
Dated: ___________
Respectfully submitted,
_____ESTHER ATAM___
Esther Tendo Atam
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], a copy of the foregoing document has been sent to the Defendants in the following address:
|
DATED: ____________________
_________ ESTHER ATAM___
Esther Tenao Atam
13621 Arcturus Ave.
Gardena, CA 90249
Plaintiff in Pro Per
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 )
