On September 11, 2018 a
Motion-Secondary
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
r
P
i l
1 Thomas R Bradford Esq Bar No 110230
Sherry M Gregorio Esq Bar No 263856
2 Alexa L Halloran Esq Bar No 315470
StlPERIOR CALRT Oi CAt rpqytq
PETERSON BRADFORD BURKWITZ C011NTYOFSI1NgEhN cRDINO
R
3 100 North First Street Suite 300 DINO DISTFt CT
Burbank California 91502
4 818 562 5800
r1H 3 J
5 Attomeys for Defendant By s u r r
r
RINGO BANGALAN D D S
y
6
7
g SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
i
e g COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDfNO
4
10
a Ali Odeh Case No CIVDS1823772
11
LR Assigned to the Honorable Wilfred J Schneider Jr
Piaintiff Dept S32
2
13 vs DEFENDANT RINGO BANGALAN D D S
o REPLY TO PLAINTIFF ALI ODEH S OPPOSITION
m Lyngadlen Femandez DDS Suarez Fernandez TO DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
14
m o Den t i s t ry an d R i n g o B a n g a l a n D D S FO R FA IL URE TO O B E Y C O U RT O RDE R
oN 15 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTNORITIES
Defendants
Y 16 Date March 10 2020
Time 8 30 a m
o Z
g
m
Dept S32
18
Compiaint Filed September 11 2018
19
L
20 Defendant Ringo Bangalan D D S hereby submits his reply to Plaintiff s Opposition to his Motion
21 for Sanctions for faiiure to obey this Court s order F
22 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
23 I INTRODUCTION
24 Plaintiff Ali Odeh s brief opposition to Defendant Ringo Bangalan D D S Motion for Sanctions for
25 failure to obey this Court s order fails to atldress any of the legal arguments proffered in the Motion Plaintiff
26 completely ignores Defendant s arguments in their entirety Plaintiff s sole argument is a single statement i
27 concluding that he did compiy with this Court s order but he provides absolutely no basis or argument
28 whatsoever to support the statement His purported opposition is really not a true opposition to the 4A
DEFENDANT RINGO BAMCALAN D D S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF ALI ODEH S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT S
MOTION FOR SANC710NS FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER
4
n lfles12214 odeh ldic lpleadingslp mtn sanction fail comply ct order reply docx
r
r
s r
y ww
j n r
i
f 1 a
i tt i t3 N0 C i
2 93
A e V4 i 4
f f1Yt1 G
ic i iLi t tJ L C 1 eC l 1 h
S S
Document Filed Date
March 03, 2020
Case Filing Date
September 11, 2018
Category
Medical Malpractice Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
r P i l 1 Thomas R Bradford Esq Bar No 110230 Sherry M Gregorio Esq Bar No 263856 2 Alexa L Halloran Esq Bar No 315470 StlPERIOR CALRT Oi CAt rpqytq PETERSON BRADFORD BURKWITZ C011NTYOFSI1NgEhN cRDINO R 3 100 North First Street Suite 300 DINO DISTFt CT Burbank California 91502 4 818 562 5800 r1H 3 J 5 Attomeys for Defendant By s u r r r RINGO BANGALAN D D S y 6 7 g SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA i e g COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDfNO 4 10 a Ali Odeh Case No CIVDS1823772 11 LR Assigned to the Honorable Wilfred J Schneider Jr Piaintiff Dept S32 2 13 vs DEFENDANT RINGO BANGALAN D D S o REPLY TO PLAINTIFF ALI ODEH S OPPOSITION m Lyngadlen Femandez DDS Suarez Fernandez TO DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 14 m o Den t i s t ry an d R i n g o B a n g a l a n D D S FO R FA IL URE TO O B E Y C O U RT O RDE R oN 15 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTNORITIES Defendants Y 16 Date March 10 2020 Time 8 30 a m o Z g m Dept S32 18 Compiaint Filed September 11 2018 19 L 20 Defendant Ringo Bangalan D D S hereby submits his reply to Plaintiff s Opposition to his Motion 21 for Sanctions for faiiure to obey this Court s order F 22 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 23 I INTRODUCTION 24 Plaintiff Ali Odeh s brief opposition to Defendant Ringo Bangalan D D S Motion for Sanctions for 25 failure to obey this Court s order fails to atldress any of the legal arguments proffered in the Motion Plaintiff 26 completely ignores Defendant s arguments in their entirety Plaintiff s sole argument is a single statement i 27 concluding that he did compiy with this Court s order but he provides absolutely no basis or argument 28 whatsoever to support the statement His purported opposition is really not a true opposition to the 4A DEFENDANT RINGO BAMCALAN D D S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF ALI ODEH S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SANC710NS FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER 4 n lfles12214 odeh ldic lpleadingslp mtn sanction fail comply ct order reply docx r r s r y ww j n r i f 1 a i tt i t3 N0 C i 2 93 A e V4 i 4 f f1Yt1 G ic i iLi t tJ L C 1 eC l 1 h S S