On September 11, 2018 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Bradbury D.D.S., Michael G,
Bradbury, Rhonda,
Odeh, Ali,
and
Cohan, Kat,
Odeh, Ali,
Fernandez D.D.S, Lyngladen,
Fernandez Dds, Lyngladen,
Kingsley Dentistry,
Kingsly Dentistry,
Lyngadlen Fernandez Dds,
Lyngladen Fernandez D.D.S.,
Ringo Bangalan Dds,
Silagan-Fernandez D.D.S., Lyngadlen,
Suarez-Fernandez Dentistry,
Suarez Fernandez Dentistry And Ringo Bangalan, Dds,
for Medical Malpractice Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
V ©RH®M V
.4
Thomas R. Bradford, Esq., Bar No.:
110230
Sherry Gregorio, Esq., Bar No.: 263856
Alexa L. Halloran, Esq., Bar No.: 315470
PETERSON BRADFORD BURKWITZ
@
- -
100 North First Street, Suite 300
.
Burbank, California 91502
.
":
'2,
é: m .
SUPERDR C5}; g, f;m.»r-0RNIA
818562-5800
AttorneysforDefendant
éfiflfix
NOV 2. 5 2.329
(DWNGU'IAOON
RINGO BANGALAN, D.D.S.
h
“swagw/
BY 1'.-.
a
La .‘.-
nwmyu.“
EKFAEL H&Hs'w «mi, DEPUTY
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
\ COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINo
Ali Odeh Case No.: CIVDS1823772
Assigned to the Honorable: Wilfred J. Schneider, Jr
Plaintiff, [Dept 832]
BURKWITZ
300
91502
vs. NOTICE OF NON RECEIPT 0F PLAINTIFF’S
Suite
-
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
Street,
Lyngadlen Fernandez; DDS; Suarez-Fernandez SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BRADFORD
California
818.562.5800
Dentistry and Ringo Bangalan, DDS
First
- Defendants. Date: December 2, 2020
Burbank,
North
Time: 8:30am.
PETERSON
100 Dept: 832
Complaint Filed: September 1 1, 2018
mflmmhww—‘OQDmNmm-AWNAO
NNMNNMNNNAAAAAAAAAA
T0 THE COURT AS WELL AS ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant RiNGO BANGALAN, D.D.S.’s Motion for Summary Judgment
is scheduled to be heard on December 2, 2020. As such, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(b)(2),
the deadline for Plaintiff, Ali Odeh, to serve and file any opposition was November 18, 2020. As of the filing of
this notice, Defendant, Dr. Bangalan, has not been served with any opposition to his Motion, nor
does the
Court's docket indicate that any such opposition has been "Failure to
filed. oppose a motion that is duly noticed
and brought on for hearing in [an] action makes the motion itself an uncontested proceeding." Rooney v.
Vermont lnv. Corg. (1973) 10 Cal. 3d 351, 367.
1
NOTICE 0F NON RECEIPT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
n:\fi|es\2214-odeh (tdic)\pleadings\msj\p-not non opp msj.docx
V V
Based on the foregoing, Defendant provides this Notice to the Court.
DATED: N0vember25, 2020 PETERSON BRADFORD BURKWITZ
- -
©WNO§U1#OOMA
/s/ Thomas R. Bradford
By:
Thomas R. Bradford, Esq.
Sherry Gregorio, Esq.
Alexa L. Halloran, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
\ RINGO BANGALAN, D.D.S.
BURKWITZ
300
91502
Suite
-
Street,
California
BRADFORD 818.562.5800
First
-
North Burbank,
PETERSON 100
mNmCfiAmN—kommNmU‘l-hOON—‘O
NNNMNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA
2
NOTICE OF NON RECEIPT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
n:\files\2214-odeh (tdic)\pleadings\msj\p—not non opp msj.docx
Document Filed Date
November 25, 2020
Case Filing Date
September 11, 2018
Category
Medical Malpractice Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.