SUBJECT: (1) Anti-SLAPP Motion
Moving Party: Defendants Vikram J. Singh, M.D., Back and Pain Specialists, Nova Surgical Institute, and Nova Surgical Institute, LLC
Resp. Party: Plaintiff People of the State of California ex rel. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
SUBJECT: (2) Demurrer
Moving Party: Defendants Vikram J. Singh, M.D., Back and Pain Specialists, Nova Surgical Institute, and Nova Surgical Institute, LLC
Resp. Party: Plaintiff People of the State of California ex rel. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
The anti-SLAPP motion is DENIED.
The demurrer is OVERRULED.
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:
The Court reminds Plaintiff’s counsel that it is improper to cite this court to other trial court rulings. It is not appropriate to attempt to get around this prohibition by stating that these other trial court rulings are being cited “for their potential persuasive (not precedential) value.” (Opposition, p. 4, fn. 5.)
BACKGROUND:
This case is brought on behalf of the People of
Hearing Date
September 11, 2020
Type
Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
SUBJECT: (1) Anti-SLAPP Motion
Moving Party: Defendants Vikram J. Singh, M.D., Back and Pain Specialists, Nova Surgical Institute, and Nova Surgical Institute, LLC
Resp. Party: Plaintiff People of the State of California ex rel. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
SUBJECT: (2) Demurrer
Moving Party: Defendants Vikram J. Singh, M.D., Back and Pain Specialists, Nova Surgical Institute, and Nova Surgical Institute, LLC
Resp. Party: Plaintiff People of the State of California ex rel. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
The anti-SLAPP motion is DENIED.
The demurrer is OVERRULED.
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:
The Court reminds Plaintiff’s counsel that it is improper to cite this court to other trial court rulings. It is not appropriate to attempt to get around this prohibition by stating that these other trial court rulings are being cited “for their potential persuasive (not precedential) value.” (Opposition, p. 4, fn. 5.)
BACKGROUND:
This case is brought on behalf of the People of