Shiloh v Shiloh Kern County Superior Court case #BCV-16-101157

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 4/25/2018 3:45 PM Kern County Superior Court Terry McNally

By Maribel Villalon, Deputy

1352 W 8th street

4-25-18 Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint

1626 19th Street, 1111 S Arroyo Pkwy #442

Shiloh v Shiloh, et al

4-25-18

BCV-16-101157

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ MOTION TO STRIKE ENTIRE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

OPPOSITION TO SHILOH DEFENDANTS DEMURRER

1 2 3 4

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 6/26/2018 8:35 PM Kern County Superior Court Tamarah Harber-Pickens

By Gracie Goodson, Deputy

KENNY J SHILOH 14063 LA SALLE CT FONTANA, CA 92336 909-734-8934 KENNY J SHILOH, IN PRO PER

5 6 7

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8

FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

KENNY J SHILOH, Plaintiff, vs.

KENNARD SHILOH, PATRICIA SHILOH (D.B.A BASKETBALL UNIVERSE ACADEMY), MICHAEL SHILOH, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (a local public entity), LIZA M PEREZ (deputy clerk with County of Los Angeles, MELVIN PENNY (Bailiff for Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department) (and does 1)

CASE #: BCV-16-101157 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS KENNARD, PATRICIA AND MICHAEL SHILOH’S DEMURRER Judge: Schuett Department: 10 Date: 7-5-18 Time: 8:30 AM

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants.

Plaintiff Kenny J Shiloh submits the following Motion to Strike Defendants Kennard, Patricia and Michael Shiloh’s Motion to Demurrer Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint as to their arguments, which Defendants allege that “Res Judicata divest the court of jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter a second time”, the Defendants demurrer as to the failure to state a cause of action under the Plaintiff’s first, fourth, fifth and eighth causes of action and the Defendants argument that the eighth cause of action is time barred and any statements made during judicial proceedings are protected as each of the arguments are false.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 DOCUMENT TITLE (E.G. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Patricia Shiloh, the Plaintiff’s mother was listed on the Plaintiff’s health plan while seeking treatment for issues of Depression up until about September 2011 in which the Plaintiff terminated her from his treatment plan. Patricia Shiloh was actively involved in the Plaintiff’s treatment plan. (please see Exhibit A) Defendants have filed a motion to demur the Plaintiff’s third amended complaint alleging that it is difficult to follow and/or comprehend despite there being no grey area when it comes to whether or not they are guilty of violating the California Medical Information Act. (Cal C.C.P 56 Chapter 7) by publishing the Plaintiff’s medical status. Prior to this action, the Defendants filed a restraining order on the Plaintiff, which was the first of several broadcast/publishing’s made by Kennard and Patricia Shiloh that was saturated with untrue, and unsupported allegations. The second broadcast/publishing occurred in July 2012 in which Defendants Kennard and Patricia had again made references to the Plaintiff’s “serious mental health issues” a term, which was only utilized to demonize the Plaintiff. A third round of statements were released in case #S-1500-CV278507 which was a civil action brought forth by the Plaintiff for identity theft due to the psychological, emotional and financial abuse that took place at the hands of Kennard, Patricia and his own brother, Kevin. (see Exhibit B) Plaintiff’s uncle (Defendant Michael Shiloh) was also an card holder on an American Express account that was opened by Kennard and Patricia Shiloh utilizing the Plaintiff’s social security number without his consent. Plaintiff then filed this separate action in which was previously for malicious prosecution and fraud (which both were later dropped by the Plaintiff), violation of right to medical privacy and negligence.

II. STANDARD FOR MOTION TO STRIKE In the State of California, a Motion to strike may be filed to strike any irrelevant matter inserted in any pleading, and to strike any pleading or part thereof not drawn in conformity with the laws of the State of California. (See Code of Civil Procedure 436) A motion to strike is sometimes filed along with a demurrer. However, a motion to strike must be filed at the same time as the demurrer and must be set for hearing on the same day and time with the demurrer. If a

28 2

1 2 3 4 5

complaint is required by law to be verified but is not verified, that is also grounds for a motion to strike.

The Defendants have included arguments in their demurrer, which are false and/or is a misconstrued version of what the Plaintiff has presented to the court.

III. DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT PLAINTIFF HAD AN AFFIRMED APPEAL IS NOT

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

SUBJECT TO RES JUDICATA AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN According to Cal C.C.P 583.310, “An action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.”

The Plaintiff does confirm that there was a previous civil action involving the Plaintiff and the moving defendants. This was dismissed without prejudice on April 27, 2015.

Defendants allege that the elements in the Third Amended Complaint were listed as causes of action in Kern County Superior Court case #S-1500-CV-278507 when no such causes of action were mentioned in that particular case and therefore, not subject to res judicata. Despite giving an procedural history of the prior case in this matter, it is by no means an attempt to re-litigate any cause of action from that particular matter as the causes of action for that case were never tried on the merits.

To point out another false statement here is the issue of res judicata regarding case #S-1500CV-101157. The “5 year clock” starts to tick once a complaint is filed. The case was filed on January 16, 2013 which gave the Plaintiff from that day to bring the case to trial. However, on April 27, 2015, the case was dismissed without prejudice. On May 4, 2015, the case went to appeal which caused the “5 year clock” to stop running due to it being out of this courts jurisdiction. Then on May 10, 2016, the dismissal was affirmed with a remittitur issued on July 11, 2016. On May 10, 2015, the “5 year clock” once again ran. At the filing of this motion, it will be 4 years, 3 months and 11 days which gives the Plaintiff another 9 months to at least bring the cause of action of identity theft to this court in which the Plaintiff intends on doing. And as to the remittitur that was issued, it is inoperable due to the fact that the case was never tried on the merits. (Rosenthal v. Wilner (1988) - 197 Cal. App. 3d 1327, 243 Cal. Rptr. 472)

28 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Due to the fact that res judicata is irrelevant in this matter, it is for this reason along with the false pleading that the Plaintiff has attempted to re-litigate an issue that had already been ruled on, this court must strike the Defendants demurrer in which it moves to have the Plaintiff’s case dismissed for res judicata. The Plaintiff also request that he be granted leave of court to include Identity theft as a cause of action. Due to the fact that the Defendants have already issued their side of what occurred, which is completely irrational and shows that Kennard and Patricia Shiloh did open the account among other issues, this is a litigation that certainly has merit. (Please also see Exhibit B) III. THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PLAINTIFF’S FIRST, FOURTH, FIFTH AND

10

EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION DOES PLEAD CAUSES OF ACTION

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

A. First Cause Of Action The Plaintiff is going to assume that the Defendants are acting as a “Smart Alec” in which they have misconstrued what the actual pleading was in regards to Patricia Shiloh’s role in the breach of the Plaintiff’s medical information. The demurrer filed by these moving Defendants is beyond absurd, especially when the Plaintiff has made it abundantly clear that Chapter 7 applies to them. The Defendants, and their counsel need to show the court where Cal. C.C.P 56.36(c)(5) (or the rest of Cal C.C.P 56.36) speaks of a “health care provider, contractors, licensed health care professional(s), pharmaceutical companies or providers of health care.” The only words the Defendants should be concerned about are the roles of “persons.” To once again rebuke these moving Defendants, Patricia, Kennard and Michael are “persons” in which are held liable for the breaches.

As to the publication of medical information, Publication is the act of offering something for the general public to inspect or scrutinize. It means to convey knowledge or give notice. In Copyright law, publication is making a book or other written material available to anyone interested by distributing or offering it for sale. As it was very well pleaded in the TAC, Kennard Shiloh did a publishing of the Plaintiff’s alleged “schizophrenia” so that way, the Plaintiff could be scrutinized. The only gateway of release to the Plaintiff’s father, Kennard and uncle Michael

28 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

was through Patricia Shiloh. The Aurora Las Encinas Face Sheet (Please see Exhibit B in request for judicial notice) has her name included not once, but twice. Once as “mothers maiden name” and a “guarantor.” To give the sarcastic Defendants and their counsel a true definition of guarantor, the Plaintiff will now furnish the definition: guar-an-tor: / ˌɡerənˈtôr/ noun a person, organization, or thing that guarantees something. “the role of the police as guartantors of public order” And if this is insufficient: a person or organization who provides a guaranty.

Mrs. Shiloh had a duty to be selective as to who she shared the information with. And as one can see, when it went into the hands of Mr. Kennard Shiloh, it was misconstrued. And on the demurrer that was issued in case #S-1500-CV-278507 on March 27, 2013, Patricia and Michael Shiloh went as far as including the fact that the Plaintiff received Social Security Disability which makes this even more obvious that Mr. Kennard Shiloh obtained the information from Mrs. Shiloh in which he utilized it to take the focus of the Plaintiff. This is not to admit that the Plaintiff did any physical or verbal abuse to the Defendants but any reasonable individual would confront these Defendants. The Plaintiff will challenge any pleading when labeling him a “malicious” or “vexatious” litigant as failing to address the insensitive comments along with the other forms of abuse by these Defendants, it will be prejudicial towards the Plaintiff because these Defendants will once again, get off the hook for their behavior and the Plaintiff, always getting reprimanded for simply advocating for himself against bullies and abusive individuals.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) The Plaintiff request is that equality be utilized here as his family’s treatment towards the Plaintiff is unacceptable.

As far as the Defendants demurrer as to the first cause of action, the demurrer must be stricken due to the facts that constitute a cause of action of violation of the California Medical Information

28 5

1 2

Act as Patricia Shiloh had a duty to keep Plaintiff’s medical information confidential as Kennard and Michael Shiloh were “unauthorized” to have the medical information.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

B. Fourth cause of action The requirements for negligence are divided into five components: 1. The Defendant had a duty (to either commit an act or refrain from committing an act) 2. The Defendant breached this duty (was negligent in his or her duty) 3. The Defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff’s injury(ies) 4. The Defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of the injuries (in other words, the Defendant should have foreseen the dangers of his or her action or inaction) 5. The Plaintiff suffered actual damages Defendant Patricia Shiloh had a duty as a guarantor on the Plaintiff’s mental health treatment plan to refrain from issuing statements regarding the “mental health” of the Plaintiff in which she failed by issuing it in a court publication and to Michael and Kennard Shiloh. This breach caused the Plaintiff’s injuries in which the Plaintiff was discriminated against in the Los Angeles County Superior Court System, in which he received partial treatment in which prevented him from receiving a fair small claims hearing thus, creating actual injuries including hospitalization and pain and suffering.

Defendant’s demurrer should be stricken or Plaintiff issued leave to amend the complaint.

B. The litigation privilege does not apply to the Defendants publishing Plaintiff’s medical history in a court of law Regarding the Defendants opinion that now that the Plaintiff has “voluntarily” released his medical information to the courts, the Plaintiff does not want to discuss how he released the information to point out that not only the Plaintiff has injuries relating to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, but his family is the prime contributors to the Plaintiff’s injuries, which was presented well after his father’s comments on “schizophrenia”, and “serious mental health issues.” The Plaintiff wants to discuss his father and mother’s disclosure of his “mental health” issues which made the Plaintiff, an “open book.” So the Plaintiff may, and will still complain about the breach

28 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

because it was ignited, by these moving Defendants. The Plaintiff will go further and demand that the Defendants and their counsel keeps the Plaintiff’s “mental health” issues out of their mouth because regardless of if the Plaintiff released it or not, there is no waiver allowing them to speak on the matter.

With regards to the litigation privilege, Cal C.C.P 47 only allows litigation privilege in certain instances. But Cal C.C.P 47(2)(C) is clear that when such publications made in a court of law violates any requirement of confidentiality imposed by law, it has been made clear that Mrs. Shiloh is a “person” that Cal. C.C.P 56.36(c)(5) discusses. Mrs. Shiloh and Kennard and Michael Shiloh violated this statute and is grounds for this demurrer being stricken.

C. The Plaintiff’s Eighth cause of action for Intentional Infliction of emotional distress is not time barred and ALL statements made during judicial proceedings are NOT protected It is true that causes of intentional infliction of emotional distress are governed by the two-year statute of limitations. In order to give the courts and the Defendants clarification of the any date that the Plaintiff had the intention on covering was the third occurrence of the Defendants breach that took place during the demurrer that took place on March 27, 2013 in which the Plaintiff would later discover on or about April 16, 2015 that the Defendants utilized a business address belonging to Basketball Universe Academy in which the publishing was distributed from. The business has multiple employees other than Kennard and Patricia Shiloh in which it is now uncertain as to how many individuals has knowledge that the Plaintiff has “mental health issues” which doesn’t sit well with the Plaintiff.

Due to the fact that the Plaintiff discovered this information around that time, the statute of limitations starts upon discovery. (Jolly v Eli Lilly & Co (1988)-245 Cal. Rptr. 658, 44 Cal. 3d 1103, 751 P.2d 923) And with the timing of this litigation, the Plaintiff has filed within the two year time frame.

25 26 27 28 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

CONCLUSION The Defendants demurrer must be stricken as to their argument that the Plaintiff’s complaint is an attempt to re-litigate causes that have been tried as there was never any judgments on the merits of case #S-1500-CV-278507. Plaintiff’s first, fourth, fifth and eighth causes of action does not plead causes of action. The Defendants are not protected by litigation privilege.

Plaintiff also request that he have leave of court to add in the cause of action of “Identity theft.”

12 13 14 15

Date: June 26, 2018

16 17

KENNY J SHILOH

18

IN PRO PER

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8

1352 W 8th Street

6-26-18

1626 19th Street, 111 S Arroyo Pkwy #244

Motion to strike Defendants demurrer

Shiloh v Shiloh et al

x

6-26-18

BCV-16-101157

OPPOSITION TO COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ MOTION TO STRIKE ENTIRE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 7/2/2018 6:49 PM Kern County Superior Court Tamarah Harber-Pickens

By Gracie Goodson, Deputy

KENNY J SHILOH

14063 LA SALLE CT FONTANA CA 92366 909-734-8934 KENNY J SHILOH, IN PRO PER

5 6 7 8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9

FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

KENNY J SHILOH, Plaintiff, vs.

KENNARD SHILOH, PATRICIA SHILOH (D.B.A BASKETBALL UNIVERSE ACADEMY), MICHAEL SHILOH, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (a local public entity), LIZA M PEREZ (deputy clerk with County of Los Angeles, MELVIN PENNY (Bailiff for Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department) (and does 1)

No. BCV-16-101157 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS LOS ANGELES COUNTY MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Judge: Schuett Department: 10 Date: 6-22-18 xxxxxxx 7-9-18 Time: 8:30 AM

Defendants.

20 21

PLAINTIFF KENNY J SHILOH submits the following opposition to Defendants COUNTY OF LOS

22

ANGELES, LIZA M PEREZ (deputy clerk with County of Los Angeles) MEVLIN PENNY (bailiff for

23

Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department) motion to strike entire complaint.

24 25 26 27 28 1 DOCUMENT TITLE (E.G. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES)

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2

I. INTRODUCTION

3

On July 7, 2016, Judge Kevin C Brazile, a former attorney for Defendants County of Los Angeles declared the Plaintiff a vexatious litigant in order to prevent the Plaintiff from proceeding with a

4

meritorious complaint against his colleagues for the violation of the California Medical Information Act.

5

Later in Kern County Superior Court, their motion for judgment on the pleadings would be denied in

6

which the Defendants have still failed to issue an true and correct copy of the order that was issued on

7

April 6, 2018 showing that the third cause of action they attempted to have dismissed was denied by the court.

8

Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES petitioned the court for a judgment on the Plaintiff’s

9

pleadings on March 2, 2018. Plaintiff Kenny J Shiloh opposed the motion on March 28, 2018 on the

10 11

grounds that the complaint did contain enough facts for a cause of action regarding negligence and the violation of the Plaintiff’s right to medical privacy against Liza M Perez and Melvin Penny, and that new facts concerning the relationship with the Plaintiff and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (a

12

subsidiary of the County of Los Angeles). The Plaintiff also moved the court to allow leave to amend the

13

complaint to state the new facts. (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith v Superior Court (1998) 67 CA

14 15

4th 1072) (Exhibit A) On defendants motion was granted as to the second, and fourth causes of action with leave to amend. The Defendants request for judgment on the third cause of action for violation of right to medical privacy however, was denied. (Exhibit B) Defendants was then instructed to submit an order in

16

which they failed to state the correct order in which it stated that the third cause of action was granted as to

17

the violation of the right to medical privacy when it had been denied. (Exhibit C)

18 19

Plaintiff submitted a third amended complaint on April 25, 2018 which included two new causes of action (which was requested in the opposition submitted on March 28, 2018) of retaliation (42 U.S.C 12203(a)) and discrimination (42 U.S.C 12112).

20

The Defendants, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES submitted their motion to strike the Plaintiff’s third

21

amended complaint on the grounds that he is a vexatious litigant, his third complaint contains numerous

22

causes of action and that it contained uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible traits, and the complaint is not drawn within conformity with the laws of the state of California.

23 24

I. DEFENDANTS MOTION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CAL RULES OF COURT 2.111(4)(1)

25

AND MUST BE DENIED

26

Cal. Rules of Court 2.111(4)(1)states the following: “stating the name of the first party on each side, with

27

appropriate indication of other parties, and.....”

28

This is important due to the fact that the liability of public entities and the liability of public employees

2

1

are separately and distinctly provided for in the Government Code. (Runyon v Superior Court (Franco)

2

(1986) - 187 Cal. App. 3d 878, 232 Cal. Rptr. 101 (See Cal C.C.P 815, 818, 820) Section 815 provides in

3

essence that except as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for injuries caused by it’s conduct or that of it’s employees. In contrast, Cal Gov’t Code 820 subdivision (a) provides: “Except as

4

otherwise provided by statute (including Cal C.C.P 820.2) a public employee is liable for injury caused by

5

his act or omission to the same extent as a private person.” This opinion goes on to say that a public

6

employee may be liable for punitive damages like a private person but unlike a public entity which is

7

specifically immune. Cal. Gov’t Code 825(b) states the following: Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or any other provision of law, a public entity is authorized to pay that part of a judgment that is for punitive or

8

exemplary damages if the governing body of that public entity, acting in its sole discretion except in cases

9

involving an entity of the state government, finds all of the following:

10 11

(1) The judgment is based on an act or omission of an employee or former employee acting within the course and scope of his or her employment as an employee of the public entity.

(2) At the time of the act giving rise to the liability, the employee or former employee acted, or failed to

12

act, in good faith, without actual malice and in the apparent best interests of the public entity.

13

(3) Payment of the claim or judgment would be in the best interests of the public entity.

14 15 16 17 18

This is why the Defendants counsel left out the names of Liza M Perez and Melvin Penny as this public entity would have to pay for the punitive damages against these two individual defendants which gives a great reason to deliberately leave them off of the face of the complaint and willfully not comply with the Cal. Rules of Court that requires them to do so.

The fact that the Defendant’s motion does not comply with Cal. Rules of Court 2.111(4)(1) alone is sufficient enough for Defendants motion to be denied. But adding that it was a deliberate misrepresentation should be one of concern as the courts have been clear that even a recited misstatement

19

is grounds is treated as extrinsic fraud or mistake in the context of an equitable action to set aside a default

20

judgment. (Bennett v. Hibernia Bank, (1956) supra) (Carroll v. Abbott Laboratories (1982) supra)

21 22

II. THIS COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY CONFIRMED THAT THE PLAINTIFF’S LITIGATION HAS MERIT

23 24 25 26 27 28

As one can see from the order that was issued on April 6, 2018, the court denied Defendants County of Los Angeles’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Therefore, this makes any requirement that the Plaintiff show that the litigation has merit and is not intended for “harassment or delay”, unnecessary.

A. Defendants argument that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant is hypocritical In order for the courts to find that the Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant, the courts should take a look at the term “vexatious.” It is defined as “causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry.” Here, is a

3

1

Plaintiff who is simply submitting a complaint on the Defendants for violating his right to medical privacy

2

per Cal. C.C.P 56.36. In the genre of law, it is defined as “denoting an action or the bringer of an action

3

that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant.”

The Plaintiff is unsure as to how this litigation is annoying to the Defendants but the Plaintiff can

4

provide facts as to how the Defendants falsely required the Plaintiff to have a clerk of the Los Angeles

5

County board of supervisors “stamp” a proof of service as if the Plaintiff were some ignorant person.

6

(Exhibit D) Simply put, any ordinary person would believe that the Defendants have been vexatious

7

towards the Plaintiff as if one adds the fact that a former litigator for the Defendants placed a vexatious order on the Plaintiff to begin with, the Defendants need to discontinue claiming that the Plaintiff is a

8

vexatious litigant when the Defendants are retaliating against the Plaintiff due to the fact that he is

9

pursuing a meritorious complaint in which tbey indeed violated his right to medical privacy pursuant to

10 11

Cal C.C.P 56.36(c)(5). Dismissing this matter would be prejudicial towards the Plaintiff as the Defendants have been vexatious towards the Plaintiff. (Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537) (Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 347 U.S 483 (1954)

12

B. The vexatious litigant order was placed by a colleague and former attorney for the Defendants

13

County of Los Angeles and must be ignored per Cal C.C.P 475

14 15 16 17 18

As previously mentioned in the second amended complaint, the Plaintiff made it known to this court that a vexatious litigant order had been placed on him by Judge Kevin C. Brazile in Los Angeles County.

Judge Brazile is a former attorney for these moving Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LIZA M. PEREZ and MELVIN PENNY. Based on these facts alone, any reasonable individual would come to a warranted conclusion that Judge Brazile would fall under Cal C.C.P 170.1(a)(2)(A) in which he served as an attorney for the moving Defendnats COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES until he was appointed by then Gov. Gray Davis in 2002.

19

(Exhibit E) And to add another concern, due to the other fact that Judge Brazile is a resident of Los

20

Angeles County, Cal C.C.P 170.1(a)(3)(A) applies to him as well as he is a taxpayer of the County of Los

21

Angeles. This is the reason that a nonresident defendant in Garret v Superior Court (1947) 11 Cal. 3d 245

22

[113} Cal. RPTR. 152, 520 P.2d 968] was granted ad change of venue due to their concerns that “it is still possible that a Riverside County juror will also be a District taxpayer with an interest in keeping the

23

condemnation award unreasonably low.” Here, we have a person who has not only the power to keep a

24

civil award low, but non-existent. This is the only reason why the County of Los Angeles had the ability to

25

place the vexatious litigant order due to a “back door” entrance that was created by the relationship of

26

Judge Braaile and the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. Plaintiff request that the court consider Wolfgram v Wells Fargo Bank (1997) Cal.App4th 965, 48-49,

27

61 Cal.Rptr.2d 694) due to the fact that this court, on April 6, 2018 denied the Defendants motion to have

28

the Plaintiff’s matter dismissed regarding the violation of right to medical privacy (third cause of action) in

4

1

which it determined that it will go to trial. And furthermore, even if it was ruled that the Plaintiff is a

2

vexatious litigant, the Plaintiff has came to court with a colorful complaint. (Wolfgram v Wells Fargo

3

Bank (1997) supra at p. 60,61 Cal Rptr.2d 694) Due to the fact that the vexatious litigant order was placed by a judicial officer who is disqualified from

4

placing the order on the Plaintiff per Cal C.C.P 170.1(a)(2)(A), this court must disregard the order per Cal

5

C.C.P 475.

6 7

C. The vexatious litigant order deprives the Plaintiff of a civil right The California Medical Information Act is an act that is intended to protect the confidentiality of individually identifiable medical information from a patient by a health care provider. With this civil right

8

being mentioned, the question is how did the Defendants get the information that the Plaintiff had a

9

“mental state?” The answer is, not by the Plaintiff.

10 11

If the courts were to enforce the order that was placed by Judge Brazile, this would mean that the Plaintiff may never have a chance to address the obvious fact that the County of Los Angeles, has disclosed medical information without the Plaintiff’s permission which is a fight that the Plaintiff will

12

continue to fight for because at this point, with two parties (COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the

13

SHILOH DEFENDANTS) that feel they have the liberty to discuss the Plaintiff’s medical information

14 15

without the Plaintiff’s permission is unacceptable and illegal.

D. If the Plaintiff is found to be in contempt, the Defendants must be held accountable for the violation of the California Medical Information Act

16

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, supra and Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 347 U.S 483

17

(1954) supra, have been heavily relied upon during this litigation to make a point that for the most part,

18

has not been addressed.

Here, there is a party who has not only violated the Plaintiff’s right to medical privacy, but with the

19

help of a former attorney of theirs (Judge Brazile) turned judge, has filed what Cal. C.C.P 533 calls an

20

injunction against the Plaintiff which requires him to request permission of the court to file new litigation.

21

To say that the Plaintiff has to obey an order that was placed by a judicial officer who without question,

22

favors the party he once litigated for without first dealing with the obvious breach of the California Medical Information Act towards the Plaintiff, would by all means found to be prejudicial towards the

23

Plaintiff. This is why Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education has been repeatedly relied upon

24

throughout this matter is that for an vexatious litigant order to be placed on the Plaintiff, which has only

25

been placed to attempt to harass the Plaintiff (or to discourage the Plaintiff from submitting a complaint)

26 27 28

would be prejudicial towards him because if it were to be imposed, it would give the SHILOH DEFENDANTS, or anyone else for that matter that the Plaintiff is vulnerable prey.

Plaintiff ask that the court would please address this issue because it has never been the Plaintiff’s intent to retaliate against any of the parties and fully understand that this court, as well as to harass any

5

1

individual as this order is by all means intended to be a distraction from the real issue here in which this

2

court has agreed that the Defendants have violated the California Medical Information Act.

3

Also, the Defendants have willfully disobeyed a court order in which as shown, they were told to compose a court order that reflects the ruling in which the court order placed on April 6, 2018 in which the

4

third cause of action they moved to dismiss was denied. Sanctions for not complying with a court order

5

could be ordered against Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES as their only intent by doing such is

6

to misguide potential jurors and the courts. (Trans-Action Commercial Investors, LTd v Firmatter, Inc.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

(1997) 60 CA4th 352. Therefore, if the Plaintiff is to be penalized, the Defendants must also.

III. THERE IS NO RADICAL CHANGE IN THE SCOPE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S ACTION There is no objection to a change of “Promissory fraud” from “fraud” just as there is no objection to a change of “Violation of the California Medical Information Act” from “Violation of right to medical privacy.” (both are encoded as Cal. C.C.P 56.36) They are in the same category. Therefore, the Defendants argument that these are new causes of action has the value of ashes.

A. Libel and Discrimination causes of action Even the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendants that when they said in their own words, that the complaint the Plaintiff brought in Los Angeles County but the only thing that is different is that the case was never tried on the merits. Discrimination and libel were the other two causes of action that was brought forth on the Los Angeles County complaint. Therefore, they should have no problem with answering those causes of action as it holds just as much weight and merit as their violation of the California Medical Information Act. The Plaintiff request that even though it had not been included in the second amended complaint, it was an issue that the Defendants had been presented with in the Los Angeles County case #BC608112.

B. Retaliation

19

The Plaintiff did make a note which may have been received as an “indirect” request to the court on his

20

opposition to the Defendants Motion for judgment on the pleadings that he be given leave to amend to add

21

the cause of action for retaliation. (Exhibit H)

22

IV. DEFENDANTS COUNSEL HAS ONCE AGAIN COMMITTED AN ACT OF PERJURY The fact alone that the Defendants counsel claims that he mailed the Plaintiff a meet and confer letter

23

the same exact day that they made this motion is not only saturated with stupidity, but it is also a lie within

24

itself in which if there is any feelings of exhaust, it is of the Defendants counsel’s repeated lies in which

25

can be translated into an attempt to delay the case so that they can come up with more schemes to try to

26 27 28

defraud the Plaintiff.

V. THERE ARE STILL TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE SERVED THAT HAVE NOT YET ANSWERED THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT The same individuals who represent the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES has received the Amended

6

1

Complaints that added Liza M. Perez and Melvin Penny replaced as Doe Defendants “2” and “3”. There is

2

no reason why they have not responded and will submit a request for default judgment on those two

3

individual defendants being that John M Coleman represents them due to the fact that they are representing the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

4

VI. THE ADDITION OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION OF RETALIATION WILL NOT

5

PREJUDICE THE DEFENDANTS

6 7 8

Due to the fact that the Defendants will have to give answer to the amended complaint, it will not prejudice the Defendants to answer the cause of action of retaliation. And as stated before, the Plaintiff did note in prior litigation that there was a need for the new cause of action and therefore, should be granted to the Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

9 10 11

Due to the facts that the motion does not comply with Cal. Rules of Court 2.111(4)(1) in which the Defendants motion does not name Liza M Perez and Melvin Penny nor has made an appearance despite being served, the necessity of the Plaintiff having to show that his complaint has merit after it has been

12

ruled that the chief cornerstone of the complaint has merit, and that the vexatious litigant order has been

13

placed by a disqualified judge per Cal C.C.P 170.1(a)(2)(A) which must be ignored per Cal C.C.P 475, this

14 15 16

motion brought by the Defendants must be denied. Plaintiff also request that the causes of action of libel, discrimination and retaliation be included in this third amended complaint.

Plaintiff request that Defendants motion to strike is denied outright due to the Defendants unclean hands.

17 18 19

Date: July 2, 2018

20 21

KENNY J SHILOH

22

IN PRO PER

23 24 25 26 27 28 7

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT E

1352 W 8th Street

7-2-18 opposition to Los Angele County's Motion to strike complaint

1626 18th Street, 1111 S Arroyo Pkwy #442

Shiloh v Shiloh et al x

7-2-18

BCV-16-101157

SO, HOW ON “GOD’S GREEN EARTH” DOES IT COME DOWN TO THIS????

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 10/4/2018 5:38 PM Kern County Superior Court Tamarah Harber-Pickens

By Gracie Goodson, Deputy

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 10/16/2018 5:16 PM Kern County Superior Court Tamarah Harber-Pickens

By Yesenia Torres, Deputy

SUPERIOR COURT

Tamarah Harber-Pickens

Telephone 661-868-5393 1415 Truxtun Avenue

Clerk of the Superior Court

Bakersfield

CA

93301

JOHN COLEMAN

5/22/19

Case No.:

BCV-16-101 157

Case Name:

SHILOH vs SHILOH ET AL PROPOSED JUDGMENT

VIA E-FILE

Document:

The attached papers are being returned

D D D D

for the following reason(s):

D Check

#

Returned

This pleading does not appear to be for Superior Court, Kern County.

The attached document

Text

an improper ex-parte communication and has not been considered by the Court. required or a Request to Waive Court Fees must be submitted.

Fee of $

is

Application for Waiver of Fees missing attachment(s):

D D D

Last three (3) paystubs, if employed.

months certified by Dept. of Corrections form 193) completed by the Dept. of Corrections indicating $3.00 fee to Dept. of Corrections has been paid or insufficient funds in the account to cover.

Does not conform to Rule 2.100-2.1 19, California Rules of Court, as to form and format.

EDD

Certified

Copy of Statement of Account

Trust Account Withdrawal Order form

for previous six (6)

(CDC

Superior Court case number is wrong, incomplete, or missing.

Consolidated matter: All consolidated case numbers must be listed in the heading with the lead case listed first.

Consolidated matter: Title

is

incorrect or missing parties.

Summons does Not an

original.

not conform to compIaint/cross-complaint/petition.

Copies are not acceptable.

Copies must be provided

if

endorsed copies are requested. Submit one original plus

copy(ies).

Does not conform to Kern County Local Rule/Code: Must use Mandatory Judicial Council form. is

not eligible for filing. Reason:

incomplete.

Item(s) # Missing required forms/attachment: Original Will DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

must be presented

Signature missing:

at the

time of filing petition.

‘

Date and place of execution not completed.

Document(s) must be verified.

Show date, time, and location of hearing pursuant to California Rules of Court.

The date you have noticed this matter is a Court holiday/weekend.

Acknowledgement of Receipt/Citation must be attached to the completed proof of service.

Attach Proof of Service on opposing party.

Correct Proof of Service:

Not appraised by

the Probate Referee.

Order/Judgment does not conform to the Court minutes.

Order page does not contain enough information regarding case; need at least three identifying information for order and case (short title case and case number).

ED

lines

of text with

Dismissal cannot be entered for the following reasons: Other: Please

remove Minute Order ruling from Proposed Judgment.

Tamarah Harber-Pickens

CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT By:

YW'

TQIEQ

,

Deputy Clerk

ANY CORRESPONDENCE REQUIRING AN ANSWER FROM THE COURT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A SELF—ADDRESSED STAMPED ENVELOPE LARGE ENOUGH TO RETURN DOCUMENTS Rev. l2/2017

Page

Envelope Details

Print this

SHILOH VS SHILOH ET AL

~

Caseifi’fdfiiiinon1W7"— L_ocaftion

.

n

_'

1

I

Descnpnon Judge

Attorney

h

Flrm N_am_e

M

film} By__" :Fées”

"

"WI

AM

SHILOH VS SHILOH ET AL

M

r

t_o

—~_" "—WMWW” MW“

.chv-16-101 157

'cagejNufnbe'r

A331gned

MW

15/22/2019 11:33

_‘

1

_'__

_

"

'jKem-Bakersfield-Civil

F'

_"_

File};

_Case

of 2

page

Case # BCV-16- 101157(Schuett, Stephen D. )

page

1

fi

chhuett, Stephen D.

__

{John Coleman

_ ‘

I

EColeman

a

__

“7;“ m

_

"

W

& Associates, Lawyers

Oliva Robles

_

_

"MWWM'Wm”;

_W"

”7‘;

>

Convemence _Fee

__§$0.00

; "

TotalCourt _c_as_e Fees Total court Party T0ta_l

_'_._'_9‘$0.00

_F_e_es

Coun Flhng

__T;$0.00

__

b

$0.00

Fe_e_s

Com Service Fe_e_s _Total F111ng & Scrvjqe Fe_e_s

Iii$0.00

T__ota1

-

f$0.00 M»

Total Prov1der Service Fees

TotalProv1der Tax Fees

Taxes

‘

$0.00

g

i

_

$0.00

w

(for non-court

$0.00

t'fertsa; i

‘

§Gran_d Total

W

Payment Account

-

>f$0.00 ’

'

m

H

’

"

Name

Féé

Transaction

Amount

'Transactlon

Response

:TransactlonID

'

WARE?

.$0.00 ~

A

_

W

‘

:Order#

“f"

fifi'ifgment

Filmg Type Filing

H

.7;

'*’-

Comments

,

Judgment

Filing Descrifitibn

Number

4

'

Code

ReferenCe

_

_

QEFile

~

-

.

.4

PROPOSED JUDGMENT 0N DISMISSAL

_

'LeadDocumentOOI

AI

l

”z

Attorneys for Defendant,

,ANGELES,

COUNTY 0F Los

a Public Entity Fee

Exempt CCP

Section 6103

https://california.tylerhost.net/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=0b5f981 a-Ob 1 6-463 6-8

.

..

5/22/2019

Envelope Details

Page 2 of 2

H

Courtesy Coples

f

>

Prellmmary Coples

1 n

m”glchang@legalconnect.com

W

_

>

__

Court Fee

__

_

V

_mailcheck@legalconnect.com

U

7_

‘-

Status

.

_jRejected

l'$0.00

b.

_

H

N

_

I

SerVICeFee Rejection Informatlon ‘

Tlme -._..-

WM»

WA Comment

_

~.

12: 41 -..—

—

—.

.—

Documents

-, ~*fiwfi

>

:r—I

14- Rejected 5/22/20] 9 »-w—c .«Afl ~— T—

_

:‘$0.00

_

I

Reason

—

n

PM

.W _.v ‘

'

‘

M

”.‘,.‘.._.._.

g

Please remove Minute Order rulmg from Proposed Judgment 0..-...“ m...—

v ,_.....-.--.~—-~—.—.

"

-...

~

V

¢

M

.—-.~——‘._.. ‘

-

f—nmmw—o-

.

Assdfiiféd‘l‘ifii’e’s

‘

l-

j

:1:

Party/Busmess Name_

f0001202064;F'20c..pdf

7W.:W

_

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

L:

~.:

”J

' '

'

I

'

LeadDocumem

__»Vw..;,x

'

‘

‘

[Original]

”m” WWW

ffififlm WW3 H

A

https ://ca1ifornia.tylerhost.net/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=0b5f98 1 a-Obl 6-463 6-8

.

..

M

__

_»

j

5/22/20 1 9

H

N 0)

& UI

a

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY 0F KERN

OO-xl

w

KENNY J.

CASE NO. BCV16101157

SHILOH,

Judge Stephen D. Schuett/Department 10 Unlimited Jurisdiction County is Fee Exempt (Gov't Code §6103) Complaint filed 5/23/2016; First Amended filed 9/26/2016; Second Amended filed 1/25/2017; Third Amended filed 4/25/2018

'

Plaintiff,

v.

'

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS

ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, AND DOE DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3,

[PROPOSED]

D efendams'

JUDGMENT 0N DISMISSAL

TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS 0F RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on December 21,2018,

mqamauuacwmqaaxasrn;

aboye-entitled Court, the

LOS ANGELES, as to

Motion

for

Department "10" of the

Judgment oh the Pleadings filed by Defendant,

Amended Complaint, came on for Hearing before

Honorable Stephen D. Schuett, Judge Presiding. Pro Per Plaintifi‘, Kenny CourtCall. Kenneth Tanji,

moving party,

Jr.

of Coleman

J.

the

Shiloh, appeared via

& Associates appeared on behalf of Defendant and

COUNTY 0F LOS ANGELES.

Afier a review ofthe Moving, Opposing, and Reply Papers Argument from all

Parties, the

filed, and after taking Oral

Court Ruled and Ordered that theMotion‘for Judgment on the

Pleadings brought by Defendant,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, is gxanted.

/// 1

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 4827-6614-3859,

COUNTY OF

the Second Cause of Action for Promissory Fraud; and Fourth Cause of

Action for Negligence of the Third NN'NNNNNNNHH‘HH

in

v. 1

0N DISMISSAL

A copy ofthe Court’s December 21 It

,

2018 Order/Ruling

is

attached as Exhibit A.

appearing by reason of said Ruling and Order of this Court dated December 21, 2018,

that the Defendant,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, is therefor entitled to Judgment as against Pro

Per Plaintiff Kenny

J.

Shiloh in this Civil Action.

NOW THERFORE, 1T IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that said Pro Per \oooq'cxu-AMNH

Plaintiff,

Kenny

IT IS

J.

Shiloh, shall take nothing

fiom Defendant, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT Defendant,

COUNTY 0F Los ANGELES, is entitled to an recoverable costs in the amount of $ with interest thereon

at the rate

of (10%) per

,

annum fiom the date of entry of this Judgment until

paid.

IT Is

so ORDERED.

Dated:

May

,

20 1.9 Honorable Stephen D. Schuett (Dept. 10) Judge of‘the Kern County Superior Court .

ooanIAmNchOOQQUI‘AmNhI—i;

NNNNNNNNNHHF-HHHb—r—I

2 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 4827—661 4—3859.

v. 1

.

ON DISMISSAL

'

EXHIBIT A

Superior Court of Callfornla

County of Kern Bakersfield Departm'ent 10

Hearlng Date:

r

12/21/2018

Time: 8:30

' ~

SHILQH VS SHILOH ETAL

AM

-

12:00

PM

‘

BCV-16-101157 ~

Stephen

Honorable:

D. Schuett

Tara’

Caurt Reporter:

Cunha

Clerk:

Jessica Garcia

Bailiff:

Deputy Sheriff

PARfiES:

COUNTY OF L05 ANGELES,

Defendant, not

JOHN COLEMAN,

Attorney, not present '

present

COURT CALL, Fifth District

LLC, Llen Claimant, not present

Court of Appeal, Non-Party, not

present

KENNY SHILOH,

Plaintiff,

not present

Pro Se

Appearance telephonlcally by CourtCall by Kenneth Tanji on behalf of Defendant, County of Los Angeles Appearance telephoni_cally by CourtCalI by Kenneth Shiloh in ProPer J-IIII‘

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS Hearing Start Time: 8:30

The above

entitled

AM

cause came on regularly on

this

date and tIme with parties and/or counsel appearing

as.

reflected above.

Matter argued by counsel and submitted.

The Court makes the following findings and orders: As to

Plaintiff's

Motion to Quash Service of Motion

for

Judgment on Pleadings

O

Court finds the Motion was not timely

filed.

The Court deems the Motion as a Response tp the Motion forJudgment on the Pleadings.

**t*#*¢*#*¥¥*#***#**!#******t*¥*fifi**t#l#*tt¥**t*t**it As to Motion on Judgment on the Pleadings Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

is

granted.

MINUTE ORDER Page 1 of 2 SHILOH VS SHILOH ET AL

8CV-16-101157

Vacate Jury

Trlal set

on 01/28/2019

Vacate Final Case Management set on 01/25/2019 Vacate Mandatory Settlement Conference set on 01/11/2019.

Counsel for Defendant to prepare Order/Judgment after hearing.

MINUTE ORDER FINALIE BY.

JESSICA

GARCIA

0N:

12/21/1018

MINUTE ORDER ‘

SHILOH VS SHILOH ETAL

Page 2 of2 ’

BCV-16-101 157

PROOF 0F SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

\OwQQUIAmNH

&

I am employed at Coleman Associates, Lawyers, 210 South De Lacey Avenue, Suite 91 105, County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over age 18 100, City of Pasadena, and not a party to the Within action.

CA

On May

£1

,

2019

[PROPOSED]

served the foregoing documents, described as:

I

JUDGMENT 0N DISMISSAL on all interested parties in this action.

X

By placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed attached mailing

g H

at

on the

Pasadena, CA.

am "readily familiar" with the firm' s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It ls the deposited with the U. S. Postal Service on that same day 1n the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is

r-l

presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date after the date of dc os't for mailing an affidavit.

Executed on May 2019 at Pasadena, California.

H OJ

(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) on the SERVICE LIST

HA

Executed on

H UI

May

,

2019

(VIA EMAIL SERVICE)

HO

addresses/offices on the

Executed on

H \l

May

,

at

I

delivered such envelope

Executed on

Hc

May

.

,

is

more than one day

by hand to the addresses/offices

Pasadena, California”

Itransmitted this document electronically to the

SERVICE LIST 2019

at

Pasadena, California.

(VIA FACSIMILE SERVICE) I tranémitted this document addresses/offices on the SERVICE LIST

w

2019

electronically to the

a1 Pasadena, California"

FEDERAL

EXPRESS) Ithen deposited such envplope[s] 1n a box or other facility (VIA regularly maintained by Federal Express, an express service carrier, for overnight delivery with all delivery fees paid or otherwise provided for, for delivery t0 the addressees/offices

NG N id

on the

SERVICE LIST 2019 at Pasadena, Ca1ifornia..

May

Executed on

NN N 00

as stated

caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail

I

HN

ht

list, I

X

,

(STATE) I declafe under penalty ofperjury the above is true and correct.

er the laws of the State

NA

OIWIes

N UI

Na N \l Na 3

.

4827-6614-3859. v.1

[PROPOSED]

JUDGMENT 0N DISMISSAL ‘

.

of California that

SERVICE LIST

KENNY J. SHILOH v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, AND DOE DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3 Plaintiff in

Pro Per:

LATEST CONTACT INFO (AS 0F NOV. WMQQUIAMNH

l9, 2018)

Mr. Kenny J. Shiloh 825 N. Euclid Avenue

CA 91762 909 437-0578 kennyshiloh@yahoo.com

Ontario, Tel:

Plaintiff in

Kenny

J.

Pro Per:

Shiloh

14063 La Salle Ct.

Fontana,

CA 92336

909-734-8934 Email: kennyshiloh@yahoo.com Tel:

Kenny J. Shiloh

.

7216 Yates Street San Bemardino, CA 92404 Phone(909) 734-8934 Email: kennyshiloh@yahoo.com

Kenny J. Shiloh 1900W. Valley Blvd.

CA 92324

Colton,

A Mews

For

Defendants.

KENNARD SHILOH and PATRICIA SHILOH

V[A EM A] L: cbraun@dbmllp.com Craig N. Braun

DAKE, BRAUN

NNNNNNNNNHI—IHHa—nI—A

& MONJE, LLP

19TH Street, Second Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Tel: 661-322-0991 Fax: 661-322-0650

1626

-

[PROPOSED] 482766143859,

v. 1

4

JUDGMENT 0N DISMISSAL