Preview
BY FAX
CD wan Aw ee wD
ORIGINAL
Joseph Antonelli, Esq. (Bar No. 137039)
JAntonelli@antonellilaw.com
Janelle Carney, Esq. (Bar No. 201570)
JCamey@antonellilaw.com
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E, 2nd Floor
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Tel.: (909) 393-0223 / Fax: (909) 393-0471
Joseph Lavi, Esq. (SBN 209776)
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. (SBN 276483)
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Bivd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, California 90211
Tel.: (310) 432-0000/ Fax: (310) 432-0001
David M. deRubertis (SBN 208709)
THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM, APC
4219 Coldwater Canyon Avenue
Studio City, California 91604
Telephone: (818) 761-2322
Facsimile: (818) 761-2323
e-mail: David@deRubertisLaw.com
Attomeys for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated and the general public
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
REGINALD LYLE, on behalf ofhimselfand =} Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523
others similarly situated, } Hon. Michael Mulvihill
ept.
Plaintiff, } CLASS ACTION
v. } PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO
) DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; ; JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF 4 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; ) NONCERTIFICATION
SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET d
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET } Date: March 21, 2019
HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; 5 Time: 9:00 a.m.
TENET HEALTH; and DOES | to 100, } Dept.: 10C
inclusive,
} Action Filed: July 5, 2016
Defendants ) Trial Date: June 10, 2019
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE)
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NONCERTIFICATIONCm IN DH &F HN
°
TO DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD:
Plaintiff REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
("Plaintiff") hereby objects to the following Request for Judicial Notice submitted by Defendant
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF
MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.;
TENET HEALTH (“Manteca” or “Defendant”) in support of its Motion for Noncertification.
SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
1, Objection to Exhibit A from Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice in
Support of its Motion for Noncertification
Not a proper subject for judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code §451 and/or 452. “A
court may take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, but can only]
take judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, findings of
fact and conclusions of law, and judgments.’” Garcia v. Sterling, 176 Cal.App.3d 17, 21
(1985); (emphasis added); citing Day v. Sharp, 50 Cal.App.3d 904, 914 (1975); see also Oiye v.
Fox, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1055 (2012) (‘a court may not take judicial notice of the truth of
the facts alleged.”). Exhibit A contains an Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Class
Certification, Dare] D. Woods v. JFK Memorial Hospital Inc., et al, Riverside County Superior
Court Case No. 1205209, issued December 14, 2018, The Court may take judicial notice that
these documents exist in the Court record, however, the Court may not take judicial notice of the
facts asserted in these documents as they do not constitute (1) orders, (2) findings of fact or
conclusions of law, or (3) judgments. Furthermore, this Order of another superior court is not
binding on this court and is not a final order. Plaintiff in that action intends to appeal that order
when the appropriate time comes.!
Sustained: Overruled:
' The Law Office of Joseph Antonelli is also counsel of record in the Darel D. Woods v. JFK Memorial Hospital
Inc., et al matter and intends to appeal the order when appropriate.
1
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NONCERTIFICATIONCo we YN A hw AY DN
2. Objection to Exhibit B from Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice in
Support of its Motion for Noncertification
Not a proper subject for judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code §451 and/or 452. “A
court may take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, but can only}
take judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, findings of
fact and conclusions of law, and judgments.’” Garcia v. Sterling, 176 Cal.App.3d 17, 21
(1985); (emphasis added); citing Day v. Sharp, 50 Cal.App.3d 904, 914 (1975); see also Oiye v.
Fox, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1055 (2012) (“a court may not take judicial notice of the truth of
the facts alleged.”). Exhibit B contains an Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, Dezan et al. v. Dignity Health et al., San Bernardino County Superior Court Case
No. CIVDS1516658, issued December 21, 2017. The Court may take judicial notice that these
documents exist in the Court record, however, the Court may not take judicial notice of the facts
asserted in these documents as they do not constitute (1) orders, (2) findings of fact or
conclusions of law, or (3) judgments. Furthermore, this Order of another superior court is not
binding on this court and is not a final order. Plaintiff in that action intends to appeal that order
when the appropriate time comes.”
Sustained: Overruled:
Dated: March 19, 2019 LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
By:
Peat fare Attorney for Plaines}
? The Law Office of Joseph Antonelli is also counsel of record in the Dezan et al, ignit I al, matter and
intends to appeal the order when appropriate.
2
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NONCERTIFICATIONCoen Dw Bw DN
10
IT IS ORDERED:
Dated: , 2019
3
Hon. Michael Mulvihill,
Judge of the Superior Court
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NONCERTIFICATION
Preview
BY FAX CD wan Aw ee wD ORIGINAL Joseph Antonelli, Esq. (Bar No. 137039) JAntonelli@antonellilaw.com Janelle Carney, Esq. (Bar No. 201570) JCamey@antonellilaw.com LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E, 2nd Floor Chino Hills, CA 91709 Tel.: (909) 393-0223 / Fax: (909) 393-0471 Joseph Lavi, Esq. (SBN 209776) Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. (SBN 276483) LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Bivd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Tel.: (310) 432-0000/ Fax: (310) 432-0001 David M. deRubertis (SBN 208709) THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM, APC 4219 Coldwater Canyon Avenue Studio City, California 91604 Telephone: (818) 761-2322 Facsimile: (818) 761-2323 e-mail: David@deRubertisLaw.com Attomeys for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated and the general public SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN REGINALD LYLE, on behalf ofhimselfand =} Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2016-6523 others similarly situated, } Hon. Michael Mulvihill ept. Plaintiff, } CLASS ACTION v. } PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO ) DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; ; JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF 4 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; ) NONCERTIFICATION SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET d HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET } Date: March 21, 2019 HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; 5 Time: 9:00 a.m. TENET HEALTH; and DOES | to 100, } Dept.: 10C inclusive, } Action Filed: July 5, 2016 Defendants ) Trial Date: June 10, 2019 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE) IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NONCERTIFICATIONCm IN DH &F HN ° TO DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD: Plaintiff REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated ("Plaintiff") hereby objects to the following Request for Judicial Notice submitted by Defendant DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; TENET HEALTH (“Manteca” or “Defendant”) in support of its Motion for Noncertification. SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 1, Objection to Exhibit A from Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of its Motion for Noncertification Not a proper subject for judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code §451 and/or 452. “A court may take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, but can only] take judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgments.’” Garcia v. Sterling, 176 Cal.App.3d 17, 21 (1985); (emphasis added); citing Day v. Sharp, 50 Cal.App.3d 904, 914 (1975); see also Oiye v. Fox, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1055 (2012) (‘a court may not take judicial notice of the truth of the facts alleged.”). Exhibit A contains an Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification, Dare] D. Woods v. JFK Memorial Hospital Inc., et al, Riverside County Superior Court Case No. 1205209, issued December 14, 2018, The Court may take judicial notice that these documents exist in the Court record, however, the Court may not take judicial notice of the facts asserted in these documents as they do not constitute (1) orders, (2) findings of fact or conclusions of law, or (3) judgments. Furthermore, this Order of another superior court is not binding on this court and is not a final order. Plaintiff in that action intends to appeal that order when the appropriate time comes.! Sustained: Overruled: ' The Law Office of Joseph Antonelli is also counsel of record in the Darel D. Woods v. JFK Memorial Hospital Inc., et al matter and intends to appeal the order when appropriate. 1 PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NONCERTIFICATIONCo we YN A hw AY DN 2. Objection to Exhibit B from Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of its Motion for Noncertification Not a proper subject for judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code §451 and/or 452. “A court may take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, but can only} take judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgments.’” Garcia v. Sterling, 176 Cal.App.3d 17, 21 (1985); (emphasis added); citing Day v. Sharp, 50 Cal.App.3d 904, 914 (1975); see also Oiye v. Fox, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1055 (2012) (“a court may not take judicial notice of the truth of the facts alleged.”). Exhibit B contains an Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Dezan et al. v. Dignity Health et al., San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. CIVDS1516658, issued December 21, 2017. The Court may take judicial notice that these documents exist in the Court record, however, the Court may not take judicial notice of the facts asserted in these documents as they do not constitute (1) orders, (2) findings of fact or conclusions of law, or (3) judgments. Furthermore, this Order of another superior court is not binding on this court and is not a final order. Plaintiff in that action intends to appeal that order when the appropriate time comes.” Sustained: Overruled: Dated: March 19, 2019 LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI By: Peat fare Attorney for Plaines} ? The Law Office of Joseph Antonelli is also counsel of record in the Dezan et al, ignit I al, matter and intends to appeal the order when appropriate. 2 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NONCERTIFICATIONCoen Dw Bw DN 10 IT IS ORDERED: Dated: , 2019 3 Hon. Michael Mulvihill, Judge of the Superior Court PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NONCERTIFICATION