The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position during pre-trial litigation. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in an elder abuse case present such issues to the court.
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE
INTRODUCTION
In a dismissive 2 1/2- page document, Plaintiff ELDER FOUNDATION (“Plaintiff” or “EF”) objects to the Motion to Strike Restitution Claim filed by Defendants SunCare, LLC, et al. (“Defendants” or “SunCare”) on the grounds that the issues raised by Defendants have been ruled on by this Court and that the motion raises no new arguments with regard to Section III A (restitution not an available remedy) and B (restitution inappropriate for Medi-Cal/Medicare patients). Plaintiff, therefore, ostensibly acting in the interest of judicial economy, simply incorporates its opposition to the Covenant Care and Health Care motions previously heard by this Court and asks the Court to come to the same conclusion it did with regard to these motions.
As to Defendants’ Section III C argument that claims arising out of actions that occurred during Defendants’ bankruptcy reorganization are barred, Plaintiff asserts that because the argument is supported by a declaration, the Court must deny the motion.
Plaintiff’s blase treatment of SunCare’s motion ignores not only the additional arguments made by Defendants to support both its demurrer and the motion to strike the restitution claim, but fails to acknowledge that a declaration can be used under certain circumstances.
Given the significance of the issues before this Court, Defendants contend that another brief discussion is warranted. (See Part 2 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.