Preview
NORA K. STILESTEIN, BAR N0. 280692
nora.stilestein@afslaw.com ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto)
ALEXANDER W. RAFUSE, BAR No. 346189 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFOF {NIA
a1€x.rafuse@afslaw.com COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 2/29/2024 4:44 PM
555 West Fifth Street
48th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: 213.629.7400
Facsimile: 213.629.7401
Attorneys for Defendants
MONET DENTAL GROUP, GHAZAL AND
HSIEH DENTAL CORPORATION, and HSIEH
AND CHUNG DENTAL CORPORATION
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
11
12
ANDREA HERNANDEZ, an individual, Case N0. CIVSB2227438
Assigned t0: Hon. Thomas S. Garza
13
Plaintiff,
14
DEFENDANT MONET DENTAL
V. GROUP’S OPPOSITION T0 PLAINTIFF'S
15
MOTION: (1) T0 DEEM FACTS
MONET DENTAL GROUP, a California ADMITTED AND (2) FOR MONETARY
16
Corporation; GHAZAL AND HSIEH SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT 0F
DENTAL CORPORATION; a California $975.00
17
HSIEH AND CHUNG
Corporation;
DENTAL CORPORATION, a California Date: March 13, 2024
18
Corporation, and DOES 1-150, inclusive, Time: 8:30 am.
Dept: $27
Defendants. Action Filed: December 8, 2022
19
20
GHAZAL AND HSIEH DENTAL
CORPORATION, a California Corporation;
21
and HSIEH AND CHUNG DENTAL
CORPORATION d/b/a MONET DENTAL
22 GROUP, a California Corporation,
Cross—Complainants,
23
V.
24
25
PACIFIC DENTAL SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company,
26
Cross-Defendant.
27
28
ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
DEFENDANT MDG’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM FACTS AS ADMITTED
AFDOCS: 199636091.1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
This discovery “dispute” never required judicial intervention. Plaintiff Andrea Hernandez
served five sets of written discovery requests 0n prior counsel for Defendant Monet Dental Group
(“Defendant”), for a total of fifteen sets 0f written discovery across all three defendants in this
action. The discovery was not included With the file transfer, and therefore went unanswered.
When Plaintiff contacted current counsel regarding the outstanding responses, Defendant
immediately tried to figure out how the mistake occurred. Relying on a deadline set forth in
Plaintiff s correspondence, Defendant was working 0n the substantive responses When it received
10 Plaintiff s motions, including the present motion to deem facts as admitted.
11 Apparently, Plaintiff filed her motions before her unilaterally set deadline to respond.
12 Meet and confer efforts t0 avoid law and motion dissolved quickly. Defendant has now served
13 substantive, code-compliant, and objection-free responses. N0 dispute currently exists.
14 Defendant therefore asks the Court t0 deny Plaintiff’ s motion in its entirety.
15 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
16 On August 11, 2023, lead counsel for Defendant, Nora Stilestein, left Sheppard Mullin
17 Richter & Hampton LLP (“Sheppard Mullin”) to join ArentFox Schiff LLP (“ArentFox Schiff”).
18 (Declaration ofNora Stilestein “Stilestein Decl.” 2.) As 0f 5:00 p.m. 0n August 11, 2023, Ms.
1]
19 Stilestein no longer had any access to Sheppard Mullin case files or her Sheppard Mullin email
20 account. (I_d.)
21 Defendant ultimately decided that it wanted this matter t0 stay with Ms. Stilestein and, 0n
22 September 13, 2023, Defendant formally requested that Sheppard Mullin transfer the litigation
23 file and records to ArentFox Schiff. (I_d., at 1] 3.)
24 On September 22, 2023, Plaintiff served various written discovery requests, including the
25 Requests for Admission at issue here, on Tyler Johnson, an associate at Sheppard Mullin.
26 (Declaration of Tyler Johnson “Johnson Decl.” 1] 2.) The discovery was served Via US Mail. (Li,
27 ‘H 2-)
28 -2-
ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT MDG’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM FACTS AS ADMITTED
LOS ANGELES
AFDOCS: 199636091.1
Preview
NORA K. STILESTEIN, BAR N0. 280692 nora.stilestein@afslaw.com ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto) ALEXANDER W. RAFUSE, BAR No. 346189 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFOF {NIA a1€x.rafuse@afslaw.com COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 2/29/2024 4:44 PM 555 West Fifth Street 48th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: 213.629.7400 Facsimile: 213.629.7401 Attorneys for Defendants MONET DENTAL GROUP, GHAZAL AND HSIEH DENTAL CORPORATION, and HSIEH AND CHUNG DENTAL CORPORATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 11 12 ANDREA HERNANDEZ, an individual, Case N0. CIVSB2227438 Assigned t0: Hon. Thomas S. Garza 13 Plaintiff, 14 DEFENDANT MONET DENTAL V. GROUP’S OPPOSITION T0 PLAINTIFF'S 15 MOTION: (1) T0 DEEM FACTS MONET DENTAL GROUP, a California ADMITTED AND (2) FOR MONETARY 16 Corporation; GHAZAL AND HSIEH SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT 0F DENTAL CORPORATION; a California $975.00 17 HSIEH AND CHUNG Corporation; DENTAL CORPORATION, a California Date: March 13, 2024 18 Corporation, and DOES 1-150, inclusive, Time: 8:30 am. Dept: $27 Defendants. Action Filed: December 8, 2022 19 20 GHAZAL AND HSIEH DENTAL CORPORATION, a California Corporation; 21 and HSIEH AND CHUNG DENTAL CORPORATION d/b/a MONET DENTAL 22 GROUP, a California Corporation, Cross—Complainants, 23 V. 24 25 PACIFIC DENTAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, 26 Cross-Defendant. 27 28 ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES DEFENDANT MDG’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM FACTS AS ADMITTED AFDOCS: 199636091.1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This discovery “dispute” never required judicial intervention. Plaintiff Andrea Hernandez served five sets of written discovery requests 0n prior counsel for Defendant Monet Dental Group (“Defendant”), for a total of fifteen sets 0f written discovery across all three defendants in this action. The discovery was not included With the file transfer, and therefore went unanswered. When Plaintiff contacted current counsel regarding the outstanding responses, Defendant immediately tried to figure out how the mistake occurred. Relying on a deadline set forth in Plaintiff s correspondence, Defendant was working 0n the substantive responses When it received 10 Plaintiff s motions, including the present motion to deem facts as admitted. 11 Apparently, Plaintiff filed her motions before her unilaterally set deadline to respond. 12 Meet and confer efforts t0 avoid law and motion dissolved quickly. Defendant has now served 13 substantive, code-compliant, and objection-free responses. N0 dispute currently exists. 14 Defendant therefore asks the Court t0 deny Plaintiff’ s motion in its entirety. 15 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 16 On August 11, 2023, lead counsel for Defendant, Nora Stilestein, left Sheppard Mullin 17 Richter & Hampton LLP (“Sheppard Mullin”) to join ArentFox Schiff LLP (“ArentFox Schiff”). 18 (Declaration ofNora Stilestein “Stilestein Decl.” 2.) As 0f 5:00 p.m. 0n August 11, 2023, Ms. 1] 19 Stilestein no longer had any access to Sheppard Mullin case files or her Sheppard Mullin email 20 account. (I_d.) 21 Defendant ultimately decided that it wanted this matter t0 stay with Ms. Stilestein and, 0n 22 September 13, 2023, Defendant formally requested that Sheppard Mullin transfer the litigation 23 file and records to ArentFox Schiff. (I_d., at 1] 3.) 24 On September 22, 2023, Plaintiff served various written discovery requests, including the 25 Requests for Admission at issue here, on Tyler Johnson, an associate at Sheppard Mullin. 26 (Declaration of Tyler Johnson “Johnson Decl.” 1] 2.) The discovery was served Via US Mail. (Li, 27 ‘H 2-) 28 -2- ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEFENDANT MDG’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM FACTS AS ADMITTED LOS ANGELES AFDOCS: 199636091.1