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
\z V
F l L E D
SUPERIOR COURT gégSkIRFSIS‘u/X
‘
. ,. ‘
TWIla S. White.
- ‘
SBN. 207424 ,
c worsm 0
?ESBEPNAROWO O'STWCT
LAW OFFICE OF TWILA S. WHITE
k)
2615 Pacific Coast Highway. Suite 325
AUG 3 O 2023
Hcrmosu Beach. California 90254
Telephone: (2 3) 38 —8749 l I
_
{,1
v (-l3)
FaCSImIIL. 7
. .
38| _ 8799
.
BY chhyd Macham‘ Deomy
Attorney for Plaintiff ESPERANZA PEREZ
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
Case No.2 ClVDSl920836
(Case Assigned l0 the Honorable Judge
ESPERANZA PEREZ‘ Thomas S Garza. Department S28)
P'ainlifi?
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY T0
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
VS'
MOTION FOR
PLAINTIFF’S
RECONSIDERATION OF THE
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a
COURTS SUMMARY
KAISER
California Corporation:
ADJUDICATION ORDER
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN. INC. a
SOUTHERN
California Corporation: and
Date: September 6‘ 2023
CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL Time: 8:30 am.
GROUP. INC. a California Corporation; Dept; 528
TAW'NA BRUUN: an Individual: and DOES
Action Filed: March 20‘ 2mg
“hrough 50- InclusiV'C-
Trial Date: March I 1. 2024
Defendants.
i
Pl ,UNTH l",\ RI Pl Y 'I'H
I)! I
I'NI) \N’I S ()PPHSI’I T0 AINTH'I'S MOTH )N
[UN I’l I ()R RI (’ONSH)! RATIUNUF THI
(‘Ul VR'! ’5 \l 'MMARY Al)“ 7])l('/\'I ION ()Rl)! R
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Ix)
ARGUMENT I.
l. The court has the inherent authority t0 reconsider its rulings.
Plaintiff‘s motion is clear in its intent. Plaintiffsecks the court t0 exercise its inherent
authority t0 reconsider. pursuant to Cal. C0nst.. art. III. § 3 m CCP I008 (c) 21nd (c). its
ruling granting Defendant‘s summary adjudication where it dismissed Plaintiff‘s claims for
FEHA disability discrimination; FEHA retaliation: violation OfIhe CFRA; and Whistleblower
Retaliation (Labor Code, §§98.6. ”02.5). Hence, it is entirely at the trial coun's discretion.
There are n0 legal restrictions that prevent the trial court from addressing this motion in a
hearing. lt would be waste ofjudicial resources Io not have the matter heard and Ihc issues
addressed. as not doing so could result in multiple trials and years ot‘prolraclcd litigation ofa
case [hat is already 5 years old.
Defendant Kaiser cites Io Le Francois v. Gael (2005) 35 Ca|.4lh l094 ("Le lfi‘mzcnis ")
arguing that Plaintiff is trying t0 circumvent the requirements of code 0f civil procedure
section 1008(a). This is untrue. Le Francois only supports Plaintiff‘s position. In Le Francois;
defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial coun denied the motion. Marc than a
year later. some ofthe defendants again moved for summary judgment 0n Ihc samc grounds.
The court granted the second motion. Plaintiff appealed and thc Coun 0f Appeal concluded
16
that “the trial court had “inherent power to rulc upon the second motion cvcn if i1 was n01
based upon new {acts or law." and this "inherent power docs n01 depend 0n statute. nor may a
statute confine it." Accordingly. it held “that notwithstanding either scclion IOUX or section
437C (0(2). [Ihc second judge] had inherent power 10 exercise his 'comtilutionully derived
authority t0 reconsider the prior interim ruling and correct an error 0f law on a dispositivc
"
issue.‘ (Quoting Scott ('0. v. United Slates Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. ('0, (2003) l07
Cal.App.41h I97, 2|2, I32 Cal.Rptr.2d 89.) The Supreme Court upheld thc Court ol‘Appcal's
decision that the trial court had inherent power (lerivedfrom the California Constitution m
consider the second morilm notwithstanding (my statutory limitation. [4c Frmu-m's. supra, 35
24
Cal.4th 1094 at 1096-1097. Similar t0 Le Frunmis. this court has the inherent povscr to in the
25
instant matter reconsider its prior MS] ruling and correct an error 0f law on a dispositive
26 There arc n0 statutory limitations which
issue. tic the coun‘s hands.
Furthermore. a motion pursuant to lee 0f Civil Procedure § 1008(u) um still be
28 filed beyond the statutory period us long as there is a “sutisfllcmo' explanation jhr the
l
PLAIN I Ill S RI I’l Y IUDH I.NI)»\N'| 5' ()l’l’t )Sl'l [UN HH’I AIN I'll l-
S M(H'IUN l ()R RI U )NMIJI RA | It )N t )I IIH
('Hl VR'I S \l ‘MMXRY \l).ll ‘I)I('/\’l l( )N ( )RDI R
Document Filed Date
August 30, 2023
Case Filing Date
March 20, 2019
Category
Wrongful Termination Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
\z V F l L E D SUPERIOR COURT gégSkIRFSIS‘u/X ‘ . ,. ‘ TWIla S. White. - ‘ SBN. 207424 , c worsm 0 ?ESBEPNAROWO O'STWCT LAW OFFICE OF TWILA S. WHITE k) 2615 Pacific Coast Highway. Suite 325 AUG 3 O 2023 Hcrmosu Beach. California 90254 Telephone: (2 3) 38 —8749 l I _ {,1 v (-l3) FaCSImIIL. 7 . . 38| _ 8799 . BY chhyd Macham‘ Deomy Attorney for Plaintiff ESPERANZA PEREZ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO Case No.2 ClVDSl920836 (Case Assigned l0 the Honorable Judge ESPERANZA PEREZ‘ Thomas S Garza. Department S28) P'ainlifi? PLAINTIFF’S REPLY T0 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO VS' MOTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S RECONSIDERATION OF THE KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a COURTS SUMMARY KAISER California Corporation: ADJUDICATION ORDER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN. INC. a SOUTHERN California Corporation: and Date: September 6‘ 2023 CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL Time: 8:30 am. GROUP. INC. a California Corporation; Dept; 528 TAW'NA BRUUN: an Individual: and DOES Action Filed: March 20‘ 2mg “hrough 50- InclusiV'C- Trial Date: March I 1. 2024 Defendants. i Pl ,UNTH l",\ RI Pl Y 'I'H I)! I I'NI) \N’I S ()PPHSI’I T0 AINTH'I'S MOTH )N [UN I’l I ()R RI (’ONSH)! RATIUNUF THI (‘Ul VR'! ’5 \l 'MMARY Al)“ 7])l('/\'I ION ()Rl)! R MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Ix) ARGUMENT I. l. The court has the inherent authority t0 reconsider its rulings. Plaintiff‘s motion is clear in its intent. Plaintiffsecks the court t0 exercise its inherent authority t0 reconsider. pursuant to Cal. C0nst.. art. III. § 3 m CCP I008 (c) 21nd (c). its ruling granting Defendant‘s summary adjudication where it dismissed Plaintiff‘s claims for FEHA disability discrimination; FEHA retaliation: violation OfIhe CFRA; and Whistleblower Retaliation (Labor Code, §§98.6. ”02.5). Hence, it is entirely at the trial coun's discretion. There are n0 legal restrictions that prevent the trial court from addressing this motion in a hearing. lt would be waste ofjudicial resources Io not have the matter heard and Ihc issues addressed. as not doing so could result in multiple trials and years ot‘prolraclcd litigation ofa case [hat is already 5 years old. Defendant Kaiser cites Io Le Francois v. Gael (2005) 35 Ca|.4lh l094 ("Le lfi‘mzcnis ") arguing that Plaintiff is trying t0 circumvent the requirements of code 0f civil procedure section 1008(a). This is untrue. Le Francois only supports Plaintiff‘s position. In Le Francois; defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial coun denied the motion. Marc than a year later. some ofthe defendants again moved for summary judgment 0n Ihc samc grounds. The court granted the second motion. Plaintiff appealed and thc Coun 0f Appeal concluded 16 that “the trial court had “inherent power to rulc upon the second motion cvcn if i1 was n01 based upon new {acts or law." and this "inherent power docs n01 depend 0n statute. nor may a statute confine it." Accordingly. it held “that notwithstanding either scclion IOUX or section 437C (0(2). [Ihc second judge] had inherent power 10 exercise his 'comtilutionully derived authority t0 reconsider the prior interim ruling and correct an error 0f law on a dispositivc " issue.‘ (Quoting Scott ('0. v. United Slates Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. ('0, (2003) l07 Cal.App.41h I97, 2|2, I32 Cal.Rptr.2d 89.) The Supreme Court upheld thc Court ol‘Appcal's decision that the trial court had inherent power (lerivedfrom the California Constitution m consider the second morilm notwithstanding (my statutory limitation. [4c Frmu-m's. supra, 35 24 Cal.4th 1094 at 1096-1097. Similar t0 Le Frunmis. this court has the inherent povscr to in the 25 instant matter reconsider its prior MS] ruling and correct an error 0f law on a dispositive 26 There arc n0 statutory limitations which issue. tic the coun‘s hands. Furthermore. a motion pursuant to lee 0f Civil Procedure § 1008(u) um still be 28 filed beyond the statutory period us long as there is a “sutisfllcmo' explanation jhr the l PLAIN I Ill S RI I’l Y IUDH I.NI)»\N'| 5' ()l’l’t )Sl'l [UN HH’I AIN I'll l- S M(H'IUN l ()R RI U )NMIJI RA | It )N t )I IIH ('Hl VR'I S \l ‘MMXRY \l).ll ‘I)I('/\’l l( )N ( )RDI R