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
V \ur
Thomas R. Bradford, Esq., Bar No.2 110230
Sherry M. Gregorio, Esq., BarNo.: 263856
Gayane Muradyan, Esq., Bar No.2 337436
“ u
swamorg origami": cmFomnA
L F,-
D
PETERSON BRADFORD BURKWITZ - -
CQ.'.~§-‘,“Efi‘z’.£'.‘-T§-5W
"‘~~' " FftiSfiWJ
~ «=-:-P.uC:
100bN0r1h Firsft Street, Suite 300
Bur ank,Caliornia 91502 x29
A' “ 0‘1 m
‘UZZ
818.562.5800
030-th
SPECIALLY APPEARING FOR Defendant BY fl~&:JMg.—~..
Ms? ’
Ls? nuts :23, :zr-U‘Tz'
RINGO BANGALAN, D.D.S. :
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
(Omfl
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
Egg;
11
Ali Odeh Case No.: CIVDS1823772
Assigned to the Honorable: Wilfred J. Schneider, Jr
12
Plaintiff, [Dept S32]
13
vs. SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT RINGO
BURKWITZ
300
BANGALAN, D.D.S.’ OPPOSITION T0
SUIte
91502
Lyngadlen Fernandez; DDS, ET. AL PLAINTIFF’S PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE AND
-
14
STATUTORILY BARRED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
Street
California Defendants. FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
BRADFORD 818.562.5800 15
First
DAMAGES
-
16
Burbank,
North
Date: April 11, 2022
PETERSON
100 17
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept: 832
18
19
20
21 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
22 Specially Appearing “Defendant” Ringo Bangalan, D.D.S. (“Defendant"), hereby opposes Plaintiff‘s
23 Procedurally Defective and Statutorily Barred Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint for Damages, as
24 follows:
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
1
SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT’S OPPOSIT!ON TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
pOpp to Pl motion for leave to file TAC~rev
V v
l. INTRODUCTION
Defendant and his attomeys of record are making this special appearance because they accidentally
discovered that Plaintiff, who did not bother serving the Defendant with his Motion, is going to amend a complaint on a
case that was already decided on merits. Not only is there is an enforceable court decision on this case, but Plaintiff‘s
Vamhmm
appeal disagreeing with that decision was also dismissed due to his gross negligence in filing a brief in support thereof.
Plaintiffs “motion" Spends considerable time talking about the sequence of the events leading to his injury and even
more time regurgitating various legal authorities.
m What Plaintiff‘s motion conveniently omits to mention is the procedural posture which undoubtedly shows that
Plaintiffs case was decided on merits two years ago, interestingly, with no opposition filed by the Pfaintiff, and judg ment
1O was entered in Defendant’s favor. That judgment remained undisturbed as Plaintiffs appeal from the underlying
11 judgment was dismissed on March 23, 2022, due to Plaintiffs failure to file an appellant’s opening brief under California
12 Rules of Court 8.2220(a)(1). Interestingly, the subject motion, along with the Third Amended Complaint, was filed on
BURKWITZ
300 13 March 1, 2022.
91502
Suite
-
14 Further, although Plaintiffs motion argues that there is no prejudice to the Defendant, the fact that the
Street,
Caiifornia
BRADFORD 818.562.5800 15 Defendant was not even sewed with this motion is by itself prejudicial and a gross violation of California Rules of Civil
First
-
Burbank,
16 Procedure. Plaintiff’s egregious omission to timely serve the Defendant with a copy 0f the motion depn'ved the
Norlh
PETERSON 100 17 Defendant of a meaningful opportunity to review the Motion, the Third Amended Complaint (hereinafter “TAC"), identify
18 the grounds for this motion, if there are any. The Defendant was surpn'sed to come across Plaintiffs Complaint and
19 even more preposterous motion in support thereof, when Defendant was checking the court's website to ensure that
20 a notice of the dismissal of Plaintiffs Appeal was filed. This is not how the Rules of Civil Procedure require the opposing
21 party to be notified about pending motions and upcoming hearings, and the Plaintiffs improper actions should be
22 addressed, and this motion denied with prejudice.
23 ll. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND RELEVANT T0 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
24 Plaintiff filed his initial lawsuit on September 11, 2018, and filed two additional amended complaints;
25 the Second Amended Complaint was the operative complaint and was filed on July 15, 2019. (Declaration of
26 Thomas R. Bradford, Esq. (Bradford Decl., 112.) The only claims against Dr. Bangalan were the Second Cause
27 of Action for Battery and the Third Cause of Action for Gross Negligence. (lg)
28 On August 14, 2020, Dr. Bangalan filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or alternatively Summary
2
SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
p-Opp to P! motion tor leave to file TAC~rev
Preview
V \ur Thomas R. Bradford, Esq., Bar No.2 110230 Sherry M. Gregorio, Esq., BarNo.: 263856 Gayane Muradyan, Esq., Bar No.2 337436 “ u swamorg origami": cmFomnA L F,- D PETERSON BRADFORD BURKWITZ - - CQ.'.~§-‘,“Efi‘z’.£'.‘-T§-5W "‘~~' " FftiSfiWJ ~ «=-:-P.uC: 100bN0r1h Firsft Street, Suite 300 Bur ank,Caliornia 91502 x29 A' “ 0‘1 m ‘UZZ 818.562.5800 030-th SPECIALLY APPEARING FOR Defendant BY fl~&:JMg.—~.. Ms? ’ Ls? nuts :23, :zr-U‘Tz' RINGO BANGALAN, D.D.S. : SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Omfl COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 Egg; 11 Ali Odeh Case No.: CIVDS1823772 Assigned to the Honorable: Wilfred J. Schneider, Jr 12 Plaintiff, [Dept S32] 13 vs. SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT RINGO BURKWITZ 300 BANGALAN, D.D.S.’ OPPOSITION T0 SUIte 91502 Lyngadlen Fernandez; DDS, ET. AL PLAINTIFF’S PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE AND - 14 STATUTORILY BARRED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO Street California Defendants. FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR BRADFORD 818.562.5800 15 First DAMAGES - 16 Burbank, North Date: April 11, 2022 PETERSON 100 17 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 832 18 19 20 21 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 22 Specially Appearing “Defendant” Ringo Bangalan, D.D.S. (“Defendant"), hereby opposes Plaintiff‘s 23 Procedurally Defective and Statutorily Barred Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint for Damages, as 24 follows: 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT’S OPPOSIT!ON TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES pOpp to Pl motion for leave to file TAC~rev V v l. INTRODUCTION Defendant and his attomeys of record are making this special appearance because they accidentally discovered that Plaintiff, who did not bother serving the Defendant with his Motion, is going to amend a complaint on a case that was already decided on merits. Not only is there is an enforceable court decision on this case, but Plaintiff‘s Vamhmm appeal disagreeing with that decision was also dismissed due to his gross negligence in filing a brief in support thereof. Plaintiffs “motion" Spends considerable time talking about the sequence of the events leading to his injury and even more time regurgitating various legal authorities. m What Plaintiff‘s motion conveniently omits to mention is the procedural posture which undoubtedly shows that Plaintiffs case was decided on merits two years ago, interestingly, with no opposition filed by the Pfaintiff, and judg ment 1O was entered in Defendant’s favor. That judgment remained undisturbed as Plaintiffs appeal from the underlying 11 judgment was dismissed on March 23, 2022, due to Plaintiffs failure to file an appellant’s opening brief under California 12 Rules of Court 8.2220(a)(1). Interestingly, the subject motion, along with the Third Amended Complaint, was filed on BURKWITZ 300 13 March 1, 2022. 91502 Suite - 14 Further, although Plaintiffs motion argues that there is no prejudice to the Defendant, the fact that the Street, Caiifornia BRADFORD 818.562.5800 15 Defendant was not even sewed with this motion is by itself prejudicial and a gross violation of California Rules of Civil First - Burbank, 16 Procedure. Plaintiff’s egregious omission to timely serve the Defendant with a copy 0f the motion depn'ved the Norlh PETERSON 100 17 Defendant of a meaningful opportunity to review the Motion, the Third Amended Complaint (hereinafter “TAC"), identify 18 the grounds for this motion, if there are any. The Defendant was surpn'sed to come across Plaintiffs Complaint and 19 even more preposterous motion in support thereof, when Defendant was checking the court's website to ensure that 20 a notice of the dismissal of Plaintiffs Appeal was filed. This is not how the Rules of Civil Procedure require the opposing 21 party to be notified about pending motions and upcoming hearings, and the Plaintiffs improper actions should be 22 addressed, and this motion denied with prejudice. 23 ll. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND RELEVANT T0 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 24 Plaintiff filed his initial lawsuit on September 11, 2018, and filed two additional amended complaints; 25 the Second Amended Complaint was the operative complaint and was filed on July 15, 2019. (Declaration of 26 Thomas R. Bradford, Esq. (Bradford Decl., 112.) The only claims against Dr. Bangalan were the Second Cause 27 of Action for Battery and the Third Cause of Action for Gross Negligence. (lg) 28 On August 14, 2020, Dr. Bangalan filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or alternatively Summary 2 SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES p-Opp to P! motion tor leave to file TAC~rev