Motion,Ex Parte: ODEH -V- FERNANDEZ Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                SAN B131tNARDINO SUPFRIOR COUR 1
     COUNTI OF SAN B         RNARDINO
     247 West Third Street
 2
     San Bemardino California 92415 02 0                                                        I L E D
                                                                                Sl1PER      c
                                                                                                VRY   f CAUFORNIA
 3                                                                               COUNT nr
                                                                                                      FqNqRDINO
                                                                                SAN BFfl i n     nn   n ir nnpg ON
4
                                                                                         OCT 2 2 2C20
 5
                                                                           BY
 6                                                                                  ASF L        M4lL qyY D     UtY

 7

 8                           SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 9                                         COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

10

11   ALI ODEH           et al                                     CASE NO        CIVDS1823772
                         Plaintiff
 2                                                                RULING ON MOTION TO VACATE
               vs                                                 THE SEPTEMBER 19 2019 ORDER
13                                                                ORDERING RESPONDENT S
     LYNGADLEN FERNANDEZ DDS                                      REQUEST FOR ADMISSION DEEMED
                                                       et
14                                                                ADMITTED
     al


15                       Defendants                               Date October 22 2020
                                                                  Time 9 00 A M
16                                                                Dept S32

17


18

 9
               After full consideration of the written and oral submissions by the parties the Court
20
     issues the following ruling
21   Procedural Background of the Case

22
               This is a medical malpractice battery case
23             In the operative Second Amended Complaint Plaintiff Ali Odeh alleges that on

24
     March 19 2018 he had a tooth extracted by Defendant Lyngadlen Fernandez but
25   Fernandez never closed and stitched the procedure and she did not finish the bone graft on

26   that tooth which required Plaintiff to have another dentist close and stitch the procedure

27    SAC        5 8 42         Plaintiff made a further appointment for March 28 2018 to have

28   Fernandez do the fillings        on    PlaintifPs front   teeth   9




     Page 1    of   5
 1
            Fernandez was not in the office that day so Defendant Ringo Bangalan performed
 2                            10 15
     the procedure
                                         Instead of a routine filling Defendant Bangalan performed a
 3   botched   root canal     job    without   Plaintiff   s authorization         17 22 26 29         As a result of

 4   the botched root canal PlaintifPs nerves on his upper front teeth were left exposed

 5   resulting in   a great   deal   of pain and   infection    which   last   to this   day         25 29   Plaintiff

 6   further alleges the successive administration of sedation resulted in an overdose which has

 7                  to the right side of    his                                                 40
     caused pain                                   neck    that continues to this
                                                                                     day
 8           Plaintiff alleges Fernandez falsified records for procedures she never performed and

 9   she charged    Plaintiff for     these non existent procedures                16 20 22 31 34 38

10          The Second Amended Complaint                    asserts causes of action      for   1    Violation of

11   California Business      and    Professions Code         810 1647 1680         2
                                                                                         Battery    Bangalan only        3

12   Gross Negligence                4 Misrepresentation Fernandez only
                              and
                                                                                         On July 24 2019 Plaintiff
13   dismissed his First Cause of Action with prejudice but only as to Defendant Bangalan
14   September 19 2019 Order Deeming Bangalan s RFAs Admitted
15           On June 26 2019 Defendant Bangalan propounded Requests for Admissions

16    RFA      PlaintifPs responses were due July 31 2019 and even though Defendant granted
17   Plaintiff a one week extension no responses were received                     Plaintiff refused to respond

18   because he accused Defendant of fabricating an informed consent form and forging
19   PlaintifPs signature

20           Plaintiff opposed the RFA motion arguing Defendant forged a document regarding
21   PlaintifPs purported consent to a root canal which Plaintiff never signed                         He also aYgued

22   that he should not have to verify his discovery responses because doing so could be deemed
23   an admission as to the authenticity of this forged document Attached to the opposition of
24   the motion was Plaintiffls handwritten responses without verification

25           At the time Plaintiff was represented by Attorney Vasu Vijayraghavan On reply to
26   the RFA motion Defendant argued that Plaintiff is not entided to refuse to respond to

27   discovery simply because he thinks Defendant forged the consent form He argued that
28   Plaintiff also cannot refuse to verify his responses because a verification authenticates


     Page2of5