Order: MENDOZA-V-LLU SHARED SERVICES ET AL Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                t     D
                                                                           SUPERIOR COURT OF Perron
      Kenneth R. Pedroza, SBN 184906
      DavidZ. Sohn, SBN 304167
                                                                             ‘SANNL SNARDINO ect
      COLE PEDROZA LLP                                                               MAR 0 3 2023
      2295 Huntington Drive
      San Marino, CA 91108
      Tel: (626) 431-2787
      Fax: (626) 431-2788
                                                                           wR re                      1
                                                                                                      UTY

      kpedroza@colepedroza.com
      dsohn@coledpedroza.com

      Attorneys for Defendants
      LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY SHARED SERVICES and
      LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER - MURRIETA


                       SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
 10
11                               FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

12
      REGINA MENDOZA,            an individual.      CASE NO. CIVDS1922539
13                                                   Hon. MichaelA. Sachs, Dept. $28
                    Plaintiff,
14
                                                     DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
15    Vv.                                            MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND/OR
                                                     SET ASIDE THE ORDER GRANTING
16    LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY SHARED                   DEFENDANTS’ MSJ; DECLARATION
      SERVICES, a California Corporation;            OF DAVID Z. SOHN
17    LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL
      CENTER, a California Corporation; LOMA
18    LINDA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER                Date:           March 16, 2023
19    — MURRIETA,    a California Corporation, and   Time            8:30 a.m
      DOES | through 100, inclusive.                 Dept.           $28
20
                    Defendants.                      Action filed:   July 26, 2019
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28



                    DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
~


                                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
             INTRODUCTION

             I        STATEMENT OF FACTS steceeneeneneeee                            we       seseetseeneee               wee          dtaeeeeesesssensstseessesees
                     A           Plaintiff Had 14 Months To Prepare Her Opposition To Defendants’
                                 Motion For Summary Judgment
                     B           Plaintiff Was Provided Repeated Notice Of The Deficiencies In Her
                                 Separate Statement

                                  1     Notice In Defendants’ Request To Strike Plaintiff's Responsive
                                        Separate Statement (served 5 days before the hearing) tee eeeeeseseeetasaeeeeeeneenee

                                 2      Notice In Defendants’ Reply (served 5 days before the hearing)

                                3       Notice At The January 25, 2023 MSJ Hearing seeeeeeeteeeseeee                                                   aeeenneneers!
    10
                                On February 1, 2023, The Court Granted Defendants’ Motion For
    11                          Summary Judgment         eoncenenseeteresesssees   seeeeseneees
    12                           1     Granting Defendants’ Motion Related To Plaintiff's Defective
                                        Separate Statement..                                  seeeeseeteneneseeeen                .
    13
                                2.     Granting Defendants’ Motion On The Merits                                     we                 seseeeenenen
    14
                                Plaintiff's Counsel Waited 22 Days From the MSJ Hearing And 13 Days
 15                             From Notice Of The Order To Alert The Court Of His “Inadvertence” seeeteteetennenen

 16                         Plaintiff Made Significant Substantive Changes To The Amended
                            Separate Statement                                                                                                            aeeee
 17
                            Metadata From The Word Version Of Plai intiff’s Amended Separate
 18                         Statement Shows That It Was Created On February 13, 2023, Last
                            Modified On February 16, 2023, With 461 Minutes Of Total Editing Time
 19
         LEGAL ANALYISIS                              sreeseneeneseeeeenseeseacseeesesseaessestersneseeseseseenen               teas           o         teen
2
         I       PLAINTIFF’S “INADVERTENCE” DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR
21               RECONSIDERATION UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION
                 473(b)                               soeneeaseeses            see                                                                         vee
22
                 A.        There Is No Showing Of Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, Or Neglect
23
                 B         Plaintiff's Counsel’s “Inadvertence” Was Inexcusable
24
                            1          Constructive Notice of Inadvertence                    steeneesesessenssseeseretseseeetsesteessssesesceseaeases
25
                           2.          Actual Notice Of Inadvertence seeeeeeseseseneeeteeneeee
26
                           The Evidence Suggests There Was No Inadvertence—Excusable Or Not—
27                         And The Amended Separate Statement Was Created After The Order seseeeeetsestenes

28                         There Is No Mandatory Relief As The Ord er Granting Summary Judgment
                           Is Not Analogous To A Default Judgment

                           DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION