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
F l
SUPERIOR cough F:
‘
LAW OFFICE 0F TWILA s. WHITE c C ach
gAuglvgggNrA~55~ isafitimolfigm
';
Twila S White State Bar #207424 "‘
‘QICT
2615 Pacific Coast Highway, uite
Hermosa Beach, California 90254 3scfiHNEn JUL 2 6 W
~73
Tel:(2l3) 38] -8749
n
Fax. (213) 38] - 8799
By;
W V
cesar
V‘
)
3 t; ,.
R'
Lgfbeputy
Attorney for PlaintiffESPERENZA PEREZ
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Case No.: CIVDS] 920836
ESPERANZA PEREZ, (Case Assigned t0 the Honorable Judge
10
Thomas S Garza, Department $27)
11 Plaintiff,
vs. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 2%
12 DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a APPLICATION TO CONTINUE
13 California Corporation; KAISER TRIAL AND ALL RELATED ”gm“
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC, a DEADLINES
14
California Corporation; and SOUTHERN
15 CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL [Filed Concurrently with Declaration 0f
GROUP. INC. a California Corporation; Twila S.White and Proposed order]
l6 TAWNA BRUUN: an Individual; and DOES Ww/wgs;
lthrough 50. Inclusive. Date: July 26, 2022
17
Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: S27
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
19 Complaint March 20, 2019
Filed:
FAC Filed: March 26, 20] 9
20 MSJ: August 16, 2022
TRC: December 7, 2023
21
Trial Date: December II, 2023
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
l
PLAIN'I‘IFF‘S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO
CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES
I. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
The parties werejust in court yesterday, 0n July 25, 2023, appearing in front ofDepartment
SZ7-SBJC, Hons. Michael A. Sachs. Judge Sachs heard Plaintiff's ex parte t0 advance a motion
filed by Plaintiffthat is set for hearing September 6, 2023. While Judge Sachs did not advance the
hearing and left Plaintiff’s motion 0n calendar for September 6, 2023, 0n the court’s own motion,
Sachs continued the trial date by 3 months in this matter from September l l, 2023 t0 December
1 l, 2023 and the trial readiness to December 7, 2013. (Declaration 0f Twila S. White 112
(“White Dec]. 1] 2”)). It is nonsensical that Defendant seeks t0 appear for another continuance,
when the facts and circumstances have not changed within the last 24 hours from Judge Sachs
continuing the trial date. This court should deem Defendant’s request to be moot and deny its ex
parte.
Notably, Defendants have not amended 0r withdrawn its ex parte, despite the fact that the
reliefrequested by Defendant from Judge Garza is the same reliefthat Judge Sachs already granted
yesterday. (White Decl. fl 3)
Any further continuance oftrial beyond December l l, 2023 is not warranted in the present
case. Defendant without sufficient cause continuously seeks 10 kick this almost 5 year case down
the road, thereby causing unnecessary delay. The Complaint in this matter was filed 0n March 20,
20 9,the case
1 is pending for almost 5 years, the parties has exchanged experts, Plaintiffhas noticed
depositions all of which defendant has objected t0 and refused to produce for deposition, and an
MSJ has been ruled upon. Even with all 0fthis, and Plaintiffs pending motion set for September
6, 2023, a further trial continuance beyond December 2023 is not warranted. The proposed
stipulation exchanged by the parties (which was edited short ofsignature) did not even continue
the trial date beyond November 2023; thus, the court’s continuance t0 December 2023 is more
than reasonable. In an effon to stretch this case into 2024, Defense counsel has even engaged in
gamesmanship ofmisrepresenting that a mediator was only available in July 2024, when in fact
that mediator has provided a date ofAugust 3, 2023 and November 3, 2023. There is simply no
reason t0 continue to delay this matter. (White Dec]. 4)
1]
II. NO GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO CONTINUE TRIAL
Since the trial is already moved from September l I, 2023 t0 December l l, 2023,
Defendant’s argument 0f Defendants‘ counsel scheduled t0 be in another trial, beginning 0n
Septem ber 15, 2023 is moot. (White Dec]. 1] 5) Defendant appeared yesterday before Judge Sachs
2
PLAINTIFF‘S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS‘ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO
CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES
Preview
F l SUPERIOR cough F: ‘ LAW OFFICE 0F TWILA s. WHITE c C ach gAuglvgggNrA~55~ isafitimolfigm '; Twila S White State Bar #207424 "‘ ‘QICT 2615 Pacific Coast Highway, uite Hermosa Beach, California 90254 3scfiHNEn JUL 2 6 W ~73 Tel:(2l3) 38] -8749 n Fax. (213) 38] - 8799 By; W V cesar V‘ ) 3 t; ,. R' Lgfbeputy Attorney for PlaintiffESPERENZA PEREZ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Case No.: CIVDS] 920836 ESPERANZA PEREZ, (Case Assigned t0 the Honorable Judge 10 Thomas S Garza, Department $27) 11 Plaintiff, vs. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 2% 12 DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a APPLICATION TO CONTINUE 13 California Corporation; KAISER TRIAL AND ALL RELATED ”gm“ FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC, a DEADLINES 14 California Corporation; and SOUTHERN 15 CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL [Filed Concurrently with Declaration 0f GROUP. INC. a California Corporation; Twila S.White and Proposed order] l6 TAWNA BRUUN: an Individual; and DOES Ww/wgs; lthrough 50. Inclusive. Date: July 26, 2022 17 Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: S27 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 19 Complaint March 20, 2019 Filed: FAC Filed: March 26, 20] 9 20 MSJ: August 16, 2022 TRC: December 7, 2023 21 Trial Date: December II, 2023 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 l PLAIN'I‘IFF‘S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES I. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES The parties werejust in court yesterday, 0n July 25, 2023, appearing in front ofDepartment SZ7-SBJC, Hons. Michael A. Sachs. Judge Sachs heard Plaintiff's ex parte t0 advance a motion filed by Plaintiffthat is set for hearing September 6, 2023. While Judge Sachs did not advance the hearing and left Plaintiff’s motion 0n calendar for September 6, 2023, 0n the court’s own motion, Sachs continued the trial date by 3 months in this matter from September l l, 2023 t0 December 1 l, 2023 and the trial readiness to December 7, 2013. (Declaration 0f Twila S. White 112 (“White Dec]. 1] 2”)). It is nonsensical that Defendant seeks t0 appear for another continuance, when the facts and circumstances have not changed within the last 24 hours from Judge Sachs continuing the trial date. This court should deem Defendant’s request to be moot and deny its ex parte. Notably, Defendants have not amended 0r withdrawn its ex parte, despite the fact that the reliefrequested by Defendant from Judge Garza is the same reliefthat Judge Sachs already granted yesterday. (White Decl. fl 3) Any further continuance oftrial beyond December l l, 2023 is not warranted in the present case. Defendant without sufficient cause continuously seeks 10 kick this almost 5 year case down the road, thereby causing unnecessary delay. The Complaint in this matter was filed 0n March 20, 20 9,the case 1 is pending for almost 5 years, the parties has exchanged experts, Plaintiffhas noticed depositions all of which defendant has objected t0 and refused to produce for deposition, and an MSJ has been ruled upon. Even with all 0fthis, and Plaintiffs pending motion set for September 6, 2023, a further trial continuance beyond December 2023 is not warranted. The proposed stipulation exchanged by the parties (which was edited short ofsignature) did not even continue the trial date beyond November 2023; thus, the court’s continuance t0 December 2023 is more than reasonable. In an effon to stretch this case into 2024, Defense counsel has even engaged in gamesmanship ofmisrepresenting that a mediator was only available in July 2024, when in fact that mediator has provided a date ofAugust 3, 2023 and November 3, 2023. There is simply no reason t0 continue to delay this matter. (White Dec]. 4) 1] II. NO GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO CONTINUE TRIAL Since the trial is already moved from September l I, 2023 t0 December l l, 2023, Defendant’s argument 0f Defendants‘ counsel scheduled t0 be in another trial, beginning 0n Septem ber 15, 2023 is moot. (White Dec]. 1] 5) Defendant appeared yesterday before Judge Sachs 2 PLAINTIFF‘S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS‘ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES