Motion,Ex Parte: ODEH -V- FERNANDEZ Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR COURT
                                                                          ii cniOR COU iT Q         C LiFORi IA
     COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
                                                                             COUNTY GF S nlV       E NAf2 Ef 0
     247 West Third   Street                                                  SAN BERRfAFts lii     il lR C
 2   San Bernardino    California 92415 0210

                                                                                    JUN 1         2oza
 3


 4                                                                       v
                                                                                                         Dsputy

 5

 6

 7


                          SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 9                                        COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

10

11   ALI ODEH                                                CASE NO     CIVDS1823772
                              Plaintiff
 2                                                           RULING ON PLAINTIFF S
                 s                                           MOTION TO DISQ UALIFY
13                                                           COUNSEL AND MOTION FOR
     LYNGLADEN FERNANDEZ DDS                                 SANCTIONS
14   et al
                                                             Date June 9 2020
15                            Defendants                     Time 10 00 A M
                                                             Department S32
16

17


              After full consideration of the written and oral submissions by the
 9   parties the Court rules as follows
20   Discussion

21
              This action has been the subject of somewhat extensive law and
22
     motion practice including but not limited to several prior motions for
23
     sanctions brought by Plaintiff and Fernandez
24
              Plaintiff filed the instant motions to disqualify Fernandez s counsel
25
     and for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128 5 on
26
     February         18 2020         Both motions are primarily based on allegations
27   Fernandez            s   counsel     Jerry   S Akita Akita   improperly accessed and altered
28
     Plaintiff s Yelp account



     Page    1   of   3
             Fernandez filed a single consolidated opposition addressing both
 2   motions


 3           The evidence presented is insufficient for Plaintiff to meet his burden

 4
     of establishing Akita unlawfully hacked into Plaintiff s Yelp account
 5
             It is certainly curious why Akita s law office and telephone number
 6   appeared as       the iriformation   of   record   At the same time Akita points out
 7
     the allegedly offending review was posted months before this litigation was
     initiated     by Plaintiff   Akita further observes he would be foolish to hack
 9   into Plaintiff s account and leave his own name and telephone number
10
             Additionally the review Akita allegedly posted on Plaintiff s account
11            Fernandez        business
     about                 s              was negative
                                                           It is challenging to see how
 2
     allegedly posting this negative review would have benefitted Akita s client
13   Fernandez

14           Plaintiff asks the Court to accept second hand communications from
 5
     Yelp to argue that only Akita or someone from his office could have hacked
16   into Plaintiffs account

 7           Although Fernandez does not object to this evidence it constitutes

     hearsay and does not serve to firmly establish that Akita was responsible for
 9   the hack       Given Akita s denials of his involvement the Court finds that
20   Plaintiff has not met his burden on this issue
21
             Similarly Plaintiff does not establish that the person loitering around
22
     Plaintiff s residence in the evenings is a private investigator hired by Akita
23           This is mere speculation

24
     Ruling
25   1
             Plaintiff s motion to disqualify Jerry S Akita as counsel of record for
26   Defendant Fernandez is DENIED                Plaintiff presents insufficient evidence to
27
     establish Akita was responsible for the hack into Plaintiff s Yelp account or
28
     the private investigator harassing Plaintiff



     Page 2   of   3