COMES NOW, Plaintiff, XXXX, pro se, and files this Response to Order Striking Statement of Disqualification; Verified Answer. In response thereof, Plaintiff states as follows:

  1. 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 pursuant to Section 170.3. Nothing can be further from the truth. On the contrary, Plaintiff asserts that her motion an 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 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.

  1. Plaintiff’s motion and affidavit were not unmtimely

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 CCCC, is based on falsehood and fraud – done by his predecessor judge 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.

  • 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 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 this Court was a Case Management Hearing, which was scheduled for XXX. The hearing was initially docketed for XXXX 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 XXX. Judge Small failed to acknowledge this in his Minute Order on XXX. Then on XXX, 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.

  1. 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.

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.


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.

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 )