On September 11, 2018 a
Hearing
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
1 Thomas R Bradford Esq Bar No 110230
Sherry Gregorio Esq Bar No 263856 F E D
2 Alexa L Hafloran Esq Bar No 315470 SUPERIOR CQURT OF CALIFORNIA
PETERSON BRADFORD BURKWITZ
CSAN NO sTR c
3 100 North First Street Suite 300
Burbank California 91502 APR 2 5 2019
4 818 562 5800
SY
5 Attorneys for Defendant ME ARROYO Ptm
RINGO BANGALAN D D S
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
Ali Otleh Case No CIVDS1823772
11
Assigned to the Honorable Wilfred J Schneider Jr
12 Plaintiff Dept S32j
o
3 vs DEFENDANT RINGO BANGALAN D D S REPLY
o TO PLAINTIFF ALI ODEH S OPPOSITION TO
m 14 Lyngadlen Fernandez DDS Suarez Fernandez DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SET ASIDE ANDIOR
a
Dentistry and Ringo Bangalan DDS V A C A TE E N TRY O F D E F A U L T
o
LL
N 15
Defendants Date May 2 2019
m L 16 Time 8 3Q a m
Dept S32
p z
gm
w 17
a First Arnended Complaint December 21 2018
g
Complaint Filed September 11 2018
19
20 Defendant Ringo Bangalan D D S hereby submits his reply to Plaintiff s Opposition to his Motion
21 to Set Aside Entry of Defauit
22
23
24
F6
25
26 lll
27
28
1
DEFENDANT RINGO BANGALAN D D S REPLY TO PLAINTiFF ALI ODEH S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SET ASIDE ANDIOR VACATE ENTRY OF DEFAULT
rrlfiles12214 odeh idic lpieadingslp reply to plMs opposition ot motion to set asVde detault docx
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I INTRODUCTION
3 Plaintiff s Opposition to Dr Bangalan s Motion to Set Aside and or Vacate the Entry of Defauit the
4 Motion
is composed of conjecture and falsely interpreted statements and repeatedly cites to unpublished
5 case law There is nothing in Piaintiff s Opposition to the Motion that refutes the fact that Dr Bangalan was
6 not properiy servetl in this matter
7
Plaintiff argues that a good faith effort to serve Dr Bangalan was made when a copy of the
8 summons and complaint was left at Dr Fernandez office rior to naming Dr Bangalan as a defendant in the
9 lawsuit See Plaintiff s Opposition to the Motion 3 21 26 see also Plaintiff s Opposition to the Motion
10 Exhibit 3 However this argument was disproved when the Court rightfully rejected the Proof of Service as
11 this attempt to serve Dr Bangalan before he was named as a defendant was clearly improper
12 Plaintiff s claim that Dr Bangalan was properly served at least three times is ridiculous Plaintiff is
N
0
13 blatantly misstating the facts of this matter in an attempt to violate Dr Bangalan s right to a fair trial It was
o
N 14 impossible for Dr Bangalan to duck service because there was no service for him to duck
o
a c m
o 15 The facts of this matter show that personai service was never attempted on Dr Bangalan and that
U n
16 substituted service was attempted but not completed and was done at the wrong address This clearly
Z
oZ
m
o 17 shows that Dr Bangalan was not properly served in this matter and rightfully had no reason to believe he
w
a
18 had been named as a defentlant in a lawsuit
19 II DR BANGALAN DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A LAWSUIT AGAINST HIM IN
20 SEPTEMBER 2018 BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE ACTION AT THAT TIME
21 A court may set aside an entry of default wJhen service of a summons has not resulted in actual
22 notice to a party in time to defend the action Cal Civ Proc Code 473 5 a see also Defendant s
23 Motion 6 24 25 Imputed or constructive notice is not actual notice See Rosenthal v Garner 142 Cai
24 App 3d 891 895 1983 denying respondents argument that constructive notice is sufficient to vitiate a
25 motion to set aside a default judgment see also Defendant s Motion 8 1 2
26 Piaintiff argues that Dr Fernandez Declaration should be interpreted to show that Dr Bangalan had
27 constructive notice of a possible lawsuit against him in September 2018 See Plaintiffs Opposition to the
28 Motion 3 1 2 This argument is irrelevant and not supported by law The requirement is actual notice
2
DEFENDANT RINGO BANGALAN D D S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF ALI ODEH S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SET ASIDE ANDIOR VACATE ENTRY OF DEFAULT
n lfiles12214 odeh tdic lpleadingslp reply to pltfs opposition ofmotion to set aside defaulLdocx
Document Filed Date
April 25, 2019
Case Filing Date
September 11, 2018
Category
Medical Malpractice Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
1 Thomas R Bradford Esq Bar No 110230 Sherry Gregorio Esq Bar No 263856 F E D 2 Alexa L Hafloran Esq Bar No 315470 SUPERIOR CQURT OF CALIFORNIA PETERSON BRADFORD BURKWITZ CSAN NO sTR c 3 100 North First Street Suite 300 Burbank California 91502 APR 2 5 2019 4 818 562 5800 SY 5 Attorneys for Defendant ME ARROYO Ptm RINGO BANGALAN D D S 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 Ali Otleh Case No CIVDS1823772 11 Assigned to the Honorable Wilfred J Schneider Jr 12 Plaintiff Dept S32j o 3 vs DEFENDANT RINGO BANGALAN D D S REPLY o TO PLAINTIFF ALI ODEH S OPPOSITION TO m 14 Lyngadlen Fernandez DDS Suarez Fernandez DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SET ASIDE ANDIOR a Dentistry and Ringo Bangalan DDS V A C A TE E N TRY O F D E F A U L T o LL N 15 Defendants Date May 2 2019 m L 16 Time 8 3Q a m Dept S32 p z gm w 17 a First Arnended Complaint December 21 2018 g Complaint Filed September 11 2018 19 20 Defendant Ringo Bangalan D D S hereby submits his reply to Plaintiff s Opposition to his Motion 21 to Set Aside Entry of Defauit 22 23 24 F6 25 26 lll 27 28 1 DEFENDANT RINGO BANGALAN D D S REPLY TO PLAINTiFF ALI ODEH S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SET ASIDE ANDIOR VACATE ENTRY OF DEFAULT rrlfiles12214 odeh idic lpieadingslp reply to plMs opposition ot motion to set asVde detault docx 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I INTRODUCTION 3 Plaintiff s Opposition to Dr Bangalan s Motion to Set Aside and or Vacate the Entry of Defauit the 4 Motion is composed of conjecture and falsely interpreted statements and repeatedly cites to unpublished 5 case law There is nothing in Piaintiff s Opposition to the Motion that refutes the fact that Dr Bangalan was 6 not properiy servetl in this matter 7 Plaintiff argues that a good faith effort to serve Dr Bangalan was made when a copy of the 8 summons and complaint was left at Dr Fernandez office rior to naming Dr Bangalan as a defendant in the 9 lawsuit See Plaintiff s Opposition to the Motion 3 21 26 see also Plaintiff s Opposition to the Motion 10 Exhibit 3 However this argument was disproved when the Court rightfully rejected the Proof of Service as 11 this attempt to serve Dr Bangalan before he was named as a defendant was clearly improper 12 Plaintiff s claim that Dr Bangalan was properly served at least three times is ridiculous Plaintiff is N 0 13 blatantly misstating the facts of this matter in an attempt to violate Dr Bangalan s right to a fair trial It was o N 14 impossible for Dr Bangalan to duck service because there was no service for him to duck o a c m o 15 The facts of this matter show that personai service was never attempted on Dr Bangalan and that U n 16 substituted service was attempted but not completed and was done at the wrong address This clearly Z oZ m o 17 shows that Dr Bangalan was not properly served in this matter and rightfully had no reason to believe he w a 18 had been named as a defentlant in a lawsuit 19 II DR BANGALAN DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A LAWSUIT AGAINST HIM IN 20 SEPTEMBER 2018 BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE ACTION AT THAT TIME 21 A court may set aside an entry of default wJhen service of a summons has not resulted in actual 22 notice to a party in time to defend the action Cal Civ Proc Code 473 5 a see also Defendant s 23 Motion 6 24 25 Imputed or constructive notice is not actual notice See Rosenthal v Garner 142 Cai 24 App 3d 891 895 1983 denying respondents argument that constructive notice is sufficient to vitiate a 25 motion to set aside a default judgment see also Defendant s Motion 8 1 2 26 Piaintiff argues that Dr Fernandez Declaration should be interpreted to show that Dr Bangalan had 27 constructive notice of a possible lawsuit against him in September 2018 See Plaintiffs Opposition to the 28 Motion 3 1 2 This argument is irrelevant and not supported by law The requirement is actual notice 2 DEFENDANT RINGO BANGALAN D D S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF ALI ODEH S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SET ASIDE ANDIOR VACATE ENTRY OF DEFAULT n lfiles12214 odeh tdic lpleadingslp reply to pltfs opposition ofmotion to set aside defaulLdocx