On March 20, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Perez, Esperanza,
and
Brown, Tawna,
Bruun, Tawna,
Does 1 Through 50,
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc A California Corporation,
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals A California Corporation,
Southern California Permanente Medical Group Inc., A Caifornia Corporation,
for Wrongful Termination Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
A Michele Ballard Miller (SBN 104198)
mbmiller@cozen.com
Ethan W. Chemin (SBN) 273906
echernin@cozen.com sufie'm'spg OURT D
COUN
COZEN O'CONNOR SAN $8551 anPerfiflfiF$9饰
401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850
Santa Monica, California 90401 "
JUL 8 2022
Telephone: 310.393.4000
V
Facsimile: 310.394.4700 /
BY a ah
O(DmVODU'l-bww
Attorneys for Defendants CUAUHTEMOC E
:
- EPUTY
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, KAISER
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE
MEDICAL GROUP, and TAWNA BRUUN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
90401
ESPERANZA PEREZ, Case No.: CIVD31920836 [y ;~_
BOULEVARD
1
O’CONNOR
CA
850
MONICA.
Plaintiff’
WILSHIRE
SUITE
[Assigned to the Hon. Michael A. Sachs,
COZEN
401
SANTA
VS.
Dept. S28]
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a DEFENDANTS’ REPLY SEPABATE
California Corporation; KAISER STATEMENT T0 PLAINTIFF S
FOUNDATION HEALTH pLAN, INC” a ALLEGED ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED
California Corporation; and SOUTHERN MATERIAL FACTS
CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL
GROUP, INC., a California Corporation; Date: July 14, 2022
TAWNA BRUUN, an Individual; and DOES 1 Time; 830 a_m.
through 50, Inclusive, ,
Place: 528
Defendants’
Action Filed: March 20, 2019
LEGAL\58539454\1 1
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY SEPARATE STATEMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED ADDITIONAL
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS - CASE NO. CIVDSl920836
Defendants KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH
PLAN, INC., SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, and TAWNA
BRUUN submit the following Response to Plaintiff Esperanza Perez’s (“Plaintiff or “Perez”)
Separate Statement 0f Additional Undisputed Material Facts Facts, pursuant t0 California Code of
Civil Procedure § 437c(b) and California Rule ofCourt 3.1350(d). Defendants submit this Response
OOOVODCH-waA
in support 0ftheir Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication.
At the outset, it should be noted that Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Additional Material
Facts (“AMF”) should be disregarded in its entirety as it does not adhere t0 California Rule of Court
Rule 3.1350. Specifically:
o Rule 3.1350(t)(3) makes it clear that if, as here, a party contends additional facts are
pertinent to the disposition ofthe motion, those facts must be set forth in the separate statement, but
4444A “only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition 0f the motion.” Cal.
$03k);
BOULEVARD
90401
R. Ct. 3.1350(f)(2). Here, many ofPlaintiff’s additional facts are immaterial and duplicative of facts
O'CONNOR
CA
850
WILSHIRE
SUITE
MONICA.
provided by Defendants in their Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and thus ‘
COZEN
401
SANTA
=-\ U1
unnecessarily included. .
~
W -
A O) o Plaintiff’s AMF further violates the Rules OfCourt in that the document provided by
\l
—L
Plaintiff did not follow the required 2-column format ofRule 3.1350(h), leaving a blank column for
—-\
m Defendants’ response, but rather included only a single column for Plaintiff’s purported fact. This
—\ (O created an undue burden on Defendants’ counsel in essentially recreating Plaintiff’s document into
N O the appropriate format so that Defendants could respond.
l\> —\ o Plaintiff s AMF sets for argument and long narratives, rendering it nearly impossible
NN to determine what information is purportedly material and/or supported by evidence.
N 00 Plaintiff’s AMF should be disregarded entirely based on these deficiencies.
NA
N U1 S. No. Plaintiff’s Undisputed Material Facts Defendants’ Response:
and Supporting Evidence:
l\) O)
1. Esperanza Perez is no stranger to Undisputed as to Plaintiff’swork history.
N \l
hard work. Her parents were born in Mexico Plaintiff‘s argument and long narrative is
Nm
LEGAL\58539454\1 2
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY SEPARATE STATEMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED ADDITIONAL
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS - CASE NO. CIVDSl920836
Document Filed Date
July 08, 2022
Case Filing Date
March 20, 2019
Category
Wrongful Termination Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
A Michele Ballard Miller (SBN 104198) mbmiller@cozen.com Ethan W. Chemin (SBN) 273906 echernin@cozen.com sufie'm'spg OURT D COUN COZEN O'CONNOR SAN $8551 anPerfiflfiF$9饰 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 Santa Monica, California 90401 " JUL 8 2022 Telephone: 310.393.4000 V Facsimile: 310.394.4700 / BY a ah O(DmVODU'l-bww Attorneys for Defendants CUAUHTEMOC E : - EPUTY KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, and TAWNA BRUUN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 90401 ESPERANZA PEREZ, Case No.: CIVD31920836 [y ;~_ BOULEVARD 1 O’CONNOR CA 850 MONICA. Plaintiff’ WILSHIRE SUITE [Assigned to the Hon. Michael A. Sachs, COZEN 401 SANTA VS. Dept. S28] KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a DEFENDANTS’ REPLY SEPABATE California Corporation; KAISER STATEMENT T0 PLAINTIFF S FOUNDATION HEALTH pLAN, INC” a ALLEGED ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED California Corporation; and SOUTHERN MATERIAL FACTS CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California Corporation; Date: July 14, 2022 TAWNA BRUUN, an Individual; and DOES 1 Time; 830 a_m. through 50, Inclusive, , Place: 528 Defendants’ Action Filed: March 20, 2019 LEGAL\58539454\1 1 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY SEPARATE STATEMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS - CASE NO. CIVDSl920836 Defendants KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, and TAWNA BRUUN submit the following Response to Plaintiff Esperanza Perez’s (“Plaintiff or “Perez”) Separate Statement 0f Additional Undisputed Material Facts Facts, pursuant t0 California Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(b) and California Rule ofCourt 3.1350(d). Defendants submit this Response OOOVODCH-waA in support 0ftheir Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication. At the outset, it should be noted that Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Additional Material Facts (“AMF”) should be disregarded in its entirety as it does not adhere t0 California Rule of Court Rule 3.1350. Specifically: o Rule 3.1350(t)(3) makes it clear that if, as here, a party contends additional facts are pertinent to the disposition ofthe motion, those facts must be set forth in the separate statement, but 4444A “only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition 0f the motion.” Cal. $03k); BOULEVARD 90401 R. Ct. 3.1350(f)(2). Here, many ofPlaintiff’s additional facts are immaterial and duplicative of facts O'CONNOR CA 850 WILSHIRE SUITE MONICA. provided by Defendants in their Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and thus ‘ COZEN 401 SANTA =-\ U1 unnecessarily included. . ~ W - A O) o Plaintiff’s AMF further violates the Rules OfCourt in that the document provided by \l —L Plaintiff did not follow the required 2-column format ofRule 3.1350(h), leaving a blank column for —-\ m Defendants’ response, but rather included only a single column for Plaintiff’s purported fact. This —\ (O created an undue burden on Defendants’ counsel in essentially recreating Plaintiff’s document into N O the appropriate format so that Defendants could respond. l\> —\ o Plaintiff s AMF sets for argument and long narratives, rendering it nearly impossible NN to determine what information is purportedly material and/or supported by evidence. N 00 Plaintiff’s AMF should be disregarded entirely based on these deficiencies. NA N U1 S. No. Plaintiff’s Undisputed Material Facts Defendants’ Response: and Supporting Evidence: l\) O) 1. Esperanza Perez is no stranger to Undisputed as to Plaintiff’swork history. N \l hard work. Her parents were born in Mexico Plaintiff‘s argument and long narrative is Nm LEGAL\58539454\1 2 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY SEPARATE STATEMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS - CASE NO. CIVDSl920836