|
The
following is a TELEPHONIC, ruling for 10/9/2003, Department
#30, the Honorable THOMAS P. NUGENT presiding.
Case
Number GIN024734
PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED. THE COURT FINDS THAT PLAINTIFF
HAS FAILED TO STATE ANY NEW OR DIFFERENT FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES
OR LAW SUCH THAT WOULD JUSTIFY RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S
RULING OF JULY 24, 2003. CCP SECTION 1008(B).
PLAINTIFF
HAS MISINTERPRETED THE COURT'S FEBRUARY 20, 2003 RULING ON THE
DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT/PETITION. AS THE COURT CLEARLY STATED,
THE ONLY CLAIM REMAINING IN THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS THE
ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT BY DEFENDANT IN FAILING TO ALLOW
PLAINTIFF A SECOND OPINION. THE EXTRANEOUS ALLEGATIONS IN THE
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION IN REGARD TO GAGGING, COERCION, ETC.
DO NOT FORM THE BASIS FOR ANY FURTHER RELIEF OR THEORY OF LIABILITY.
PLAINTIFF
FURTHER CLAIMS THAT THE COURT IMPROPERLY REFUSED TO ADDRESS
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN ACCOMMODATION. SUCH A REQUEST WAS
NOT CONTAINED IN PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION. THE ONLY REFERENCE
TO AN ACCOMMODATION IN PLAINTIFF'S SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES WAS MADE AT PAGE 15 OF PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN WHICH PLAINTIFF REQUESTED THE COURT
TO ISSUE AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS
FOR PLAINTIFF'S POLIO DISABILITY THROUGHOUT THE CONDUCT OF THIS
ACTION. PLAINTIFF CITED NO AUTHORITY AT THE TIME IN SUPPORT
OF SUCH REQUEST. IN THE INSTANT MOTION, PLAINTIFF CITES SIMPLY
TO SAN DIEGO SUPERIOR COURT RULES, DIVISION II, PREAMBLE STATING
THAT LAWYERS SHOULD NOT ARBITRARILY OR UNREASONABLY WITHHOLD
CONSENT TO A JUST AND REASONABLE REQUEST FOR COOPERATION OR
ACCOMMODATION. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO STATE THE PRECISE REQUEST
FOR ACCOMMODATION THAT PLAINTIFF IS REQUESTING. NOTWITHSTANDING,
THE COURT DECLINES TO FIND THAT THIS LANGUAGE SUPPORTS THE IMPOSITION
OF ANY ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANTS.
THIS
IS A FINAL RULING ENTERED AS OF THIS DATE. NO FURTHER WRITTEN
ORDER IS REQUIRED. THE COURT WILL NOT ENTERTAIN ORAL ARGUMENT.
|
