Inadequate Litigant’s Cases Dismissed Plaintiff, by her Litigation Appears to Establish the Report for a Mental Health Evaluation Was Appropriate Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gECRyZ-f, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gs_4Bby9 and at https://lnkd.in/g67dDK8q, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts. Post 4950 In Samreen Riaz v. State Of California, et al., F087504, California Court of Appeals, Fifth District (December 2, 2024) the California Court of Appeals found itself asked to resolve suits against an individual and the state of California from an inadequate but excessively litigious plaintiff. FACTS Samreen Riaz was a licensed dentist – she lost her license to practice because of the facts underlying this case. According to her, there is an elaborate conspiracy to harass, stalk, threaten, and ultimately prevent her from testifying in a separate “whistleblower” case involving “OSHA and HIPPA Violations” at a medical facility. Riaz sued raising numerous claims against numerous individuals and government entities. The opposing parties challenged the complaint’s viability through demurrer and anti-SLAPP proceedings. The trial court sustained the demurrers and granted the anti-SLAPP motion, leaving Riaz with no viable claim. Riaz appealed. BACKGROUND The facts underlying this case involve four discrete events. First: Riaz sued a medical facility and suffered an alleged eye injury while attempting to testify in that case. Second: She sought treatment for that eye injury but was refused service and then sued that doctor in small claims court. Third: That doctor reported Riaz to the Dental Board of California which, in turn, initiated mental health competence proceedings against Riaz. Fourth: Riaz’s license to practice dentistry was revoked, and she filed the complaint at issue in this case. Initial Lawsuit Against Medical Facility Acting as a “whistleblower,” Riaz “disclosed … OSHA, Hippa, recruited patient, potential insurance fraud and anti-competent activities in the market” at a medical facility. After filing a lawsuit on that basis, Riaz claimed she suffered “organized harassment,” culminating in “permanent eye damage” after a sheriff-department employee pointed a finger in her face while attempting to enter the courthouse in her “whistleblower” case. Visiting Doctor for Eye Injury Riaz visited Dr. Cantrell to treat an eye injury. She claimed Cantrell became combative, refused to answer Riaz’s questions, and declined to treat Riaz. The next day, Riaz filed a complaint with the Medical Board of California. Several days later, she filed a small claims case against Cantrell, essentially alleging discrimination, negligence, and retaliation. A small claims judgment was eventually entered in Cantrell’s favor. Report to Dental Board Cantrell reported Riaz to the Dental Board. The Dental Board issued an order to Riaz to comply with a mental health examination “to evaluate her fitness to practice safely ….” (See Bus. &Prof. Code, § 820.) Riaz failed to comply with the order. Since Riaz continued to disobey the order, her license to practice dentistry was ultimately revoked. Instant Complaint and Judgment Riaz sued Cantrell, various government entities, and several individuals working for those entities (collectively, the State). The complaint alleged an elaborate conspiracy among all the defendants to injure Riaz, to intimidate her to prevent her from testifying, and to retaliate against her for the “whistleblower” case. The trial court sustained the demurrers and granted the anti-SLAPP motion resulting in total dismissal. DISCUSSION Did the trial court err in granting the anti-SLAPP motion? Did it err in sustaining the demurrers? The California Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not err. Anti-SLAPP Motion In the anti-SLAPP motion, Cantrell argued his furnishing information to the Dental Board was protected activity and defeated claims “for discrimination, fraud, defamation, retaliation[,] and intentional infliction of emotional distress[.]” In opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion, Riaz claimed again Cantrell “made inaccurate, knowingly misleading statements to the [D]ental [B]oard to defame and harm [Riaz] based on disclosing patient information.” The trial court concluded furnishing those documents to the board constituted protected activity. ANALYSIS Litigation of an anti-SLAPP motion involves a two-step process. First, the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged allegations or claims that arise from protected activity in which the defendant has engaged. Second, for each claim that does arise from protected activity, the plaintiff must show the claim has at least minimal merit. If the plaintiff cannot make this showing, the court will, and did, strike the claim. If there is no merit, the claim is stricken. The Court of Appeals noted that Riaz failed to adduce any evidence-including exhibits, declarations, judicial notice, and testimony-to substantiate her allegation Cantrell reported her to the Dental Board for retribution. She failed to adduce admissible evidence on the point. DEMURRERS Both Cantrell and the State filed demurrers to Riaz’s complaint.. Additional Background A small claims plaintiff is collaterally estopped from relitigating the same issue in superior court where the record is sufficiently clear to determine that the issue was litigated and decided against plaintiff in the small claims action. Governmental immunity is an affirmative defense properly raised by demurrer. Government Code section 821.6 immunizes public employees from liability for ‘instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding’ within the scope of their employment, even if the employees act ‘maliciously and without probable cause. Riaz alleged her claims arose in July 2022. Her written government claim was submitted in April 2023, more than six months later. Accordingly, the claims were barred, at least insofar as they stemmed from the section 820 order. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY Riaz failed to allege colorable claims against either Cantrell or the State. The potential claims against Cantrell were either tried and resolved against her in small claims court or dismissed pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The potential claims against the State were either barred for failure to timely present them under the Government Claims Act, or the State was immune under Government Code sections 821.6, 818.4, and 821.2. ZALMA OPINION It is axiomatic that a person who represents himself has a fool for a client. The litigation history, the multiple actions, and the lack of consistency and evidence, establish that Dr. Cantrell was correct when he advised the Dental Board that a mental health examination to evaluate her fitness to practice safely…” was correct. She refused to fulfill her obligation to the Dental Board to be evaluated because she was concerned she would not pass. This case is an abuse of Doctor Cantrell and the state and should have resulted in serious sanctions. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

Intent to Move is not a Residence Residence Premises Requires the Insured to Live in Residence Post 4944 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/intent-move-residence-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-qmlxc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. In Paul Villalobos v. Clear Blue Insurance Company, No. 24-20125, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (December 10, 2024) the the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissa of Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Villalobos’s breach of contract claim following a coverage dispute between himself and his insurer, Clear Blue Insurance Company, because he admitted he did not live in the insured premises. FACTS Villalobos is named on a Clear Blue homeowners’ policy, which provides coverage for property located at 7503 Muirwood Lane in Houston, Texas (the “Property”). The policy’s “Property Coverages” section states in pertinent part: “We cover . . . [t]he dwelling on the ‘residence premises’ shown in the Declarations.” The policy defines “residence premises,” also in pertinent part, as “[t]he one-family dwelling where you reside . . . on the inception date of the policy period shown in the Declarations.” The Declarations page lists Villalobos as the insured, his mailing address as the Property, and the inception date as September 21, 2021. In mid-November 2021, Villalobos reported to Clear Blue that wind and hail had damaged the Property’s roof earlier that month. Clear Blue denied coverage after Villalobos admitted he lived in Colorado and had never resided at the Property. Villalobos sued Clear Blue, alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Texas Insurance Code, fraud, and ongoing conspiracy to commit illegal acts. ANALYSIS During his deposition, Villalobos testified that he lived in Colorado for over nine years and did not reside at the Property when the Clear Blue policy went into effect. Clear Blue moved for summary judgment on Villalobos’s claims, arguing there was no insurance coverage for Villalobos’s property damage as a matter of law. Applying Louisiana law, the Fifth Circuit has previously determined that an identical residence requirement in a homeowners’ insurance policy required “more than purchasing a home or intending to move into it.” GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co. v. Joachin, 964 F.3d 390, 393 (5th Cir. 2020). Applying Joachin the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the Property did not satisfy the policy’s residence requirement and was not a covered “residence premises” because: it is undisputed that Villalobos did not reside on the Property on the inception date of the Clear Blue policy; and Villalobos’s only material argument on appeal is that he intended to move onto the Property. Joachin held that “intending to move” is not enough. The Fifth Circuit concluded that there is no coverage under the policy. Accordingly, Villalobos’s breach of contract claim failed and the USDC’s judgment was affirmed. ZALMA OPINION That something as obvious as a home in Texas cannot be the residence premises of a person who lives full time in Colorado. Insurers issue property insurance policies providing coverage similar to a homeowners policy to the owner of a rental property while a homeowners policy limits coverage to the person who actually resides at the property. That this case went to the Fifth Circuit was the waste of Plaintiff’s time and money, the waste of the time of the trial court, and the waste of the time of the Fifth Circuit who rendered a concise and clear opinion. A less kind judge or appellate court would have imposed sanctions on the party plaintiff and his counsel. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2024/12/10/biden-gave-iran-10-billion-in-sanctions-relief-days-after-trump-won-election/

China slaps sanctions on many US military firms after investigate arms sale and also F-16 jets and radars.

Insurer Properly Sanctioned for Failure to Obey Court Order It is Never Proper to Fail to Comply With Court Order Post 4937 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurer-properly-sanctioned-failure-obey-court-order-barry-vefvc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. Insurer Privilege Underwriters took its name too far trying to obtain privileges from the Arkansas Court of Appeals to which it was not entitled and acted contumaciously by disobeying the Circuit Court’s discovery order. In Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange v. Brandon Adams, No. CV-23-474, 2024 Ark.App. 571, Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division I (November 20, 2024) the circuit court granted appellee Brandon Adams’s motion to enforce court order and motion for sanctions, imposed a “sanction fee in the amount of $5,000” against appellant Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange (“Privilege”), and awarded Adams $2,500 in attorneys’ fees and costs under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 37; denied Privilege’s motion for summary judgment; and denied Privilege’s motion for protective order, which sought to bar Adams from taking any depositions. FACTS In an insurance-coverage action in which Adams sued Privilege, his insurer, for failing to provide him a defense in a lawsuit filed against Adams and several other individuals and entities. Privilege answered Adams’s coverage complaint denying that it owed Adams a duty to defend the lawsuit and asserting a number of the subject policies’ exclusions as affirmative defenses to coverage. Adams served written discovery on Privilege. Privilege responded with objections and inadequate responses to Adams’s discovery requests. Adams moved to compel Privilege to respond and produce documents and the Court of Appeals ordered Privilege respond and to pay Adams’s attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $2,000. Privilege produced its supplemental interrogatory answers and supplemental privilege log on March 2, 2022 but did not comply with the circuit court’s discovery order. Contrary to the court’s order Privilege refused to amend its privilege log, provide full and complete answers to Adams’s interrogatories, or produce any witnesses for deposition, and instead, Privilege moved for summary judgment. Adams then filed his “Motion to Enforce Court Order and Motion for Sanctions and Incorporated Brief” on April 25, 2022. On December 20, 2022, the circuit court held a hearing on Adams’s motion for sanctions and Privilege’s motions for summary judgment and for protective order. The circuit court announced that it would sanction Privilege for its failure to comply with the circuit court’s February 2022 discovery order. From the bench, the circuit court made specific findings that Privilege had failed to comply with the provisions of that order requiring Privilege to amend its privilege log to provide sufficient information to allow the circuit court and Adams to evaluate Privilege’s claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection and to fully answer Adams’s interrogatories. TO ESTABLISH CONTEMPT Generally, in order to establish contempt, there must be willful disobedience of a valid order of a court. Contempt is a matter between the court and the litigant, and not between the two opposing litigants. Before one can be held in contempt for violating the court’s order, the order must be definite in its terms, clear as to what duties it imposes, and express in its commands. Contempt is divided into criminal contempt and civil contempt. The standard of review on appeal depends on whether the contempt sanction was civil or criminal in nature. The circuit court imposed a fine and fees that were to be paid to Adams. A contempt fine for willful disobedience that is payable to the complainant is remedial and therefore constitutes a fine for civil contempt. Privilege refused to comply with a valid discovery order from the circuit court because Privilege disputed Adams’s entitlement to the discovery underlying that order. Instead, Privilege moved for summary judgment, attempting to render moot that prior discovery order. The circuit court rightly held Privilege in contempt for its willful disobedience of the circuit court’s February 2022 discovery order and imposed a fine of $5,000. Once the February 2022 discovery order was entered, Privilege was required to comply with that order, not question the propriety of that order or when Privilege should comply with it. The circuit court was unequivocal in finding at the December 2022 hearing that it was sanctioning Privilege for its violation of the February 2022 discovery order. The circuit court then went on to explain that Privilege had disobeyed its February 2022 order by failing to provide contact information for the witnesses identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 and by failing to provide a privilege log with sufficient information to allow the circuit court and Adams to evaluate the claim of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. Thus, the Court of Appeals held that the circuit court did not clearly err in holding Privilege in contempt. The circuit court had ample authority to use its contempt powers to enforce its February 2022 discovery order. ZALMA OPINION This order must be more than embarrassing to Privilege and to the insurance industry. Parties to litigation are not entitled to refuse to fulfill an order of the court. Regardless of the name of the insurer it had no special privileges and must fulfill the order to the letter and pay the sanctions including the extra sanctions placed by the Court of Appeals. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

I have a feeling this isn't going to end well: https://lunduke.locals.com/post/6263331/sanctions-hit-linux-kernel-russian-programmers-banned

https://southfront.press/europe-still-buying-russian-gas-despite-sanctions/

EU prepares to hit Hungary with more financial sanctions https://rmx.news/article/eu-prepares-to-hit-hungary-with-more-financial-sanctions/

France and Canada slam Israel’s recognition of five new Judea and Samaria settlements, and sanctions against PA https://www.jihadwatch.org/2024/07/france-and-canada-slam-israels-recognition-of-five-new-judea-and-samaria-settlements-and-sanctions-against-pa

BIDEN OIL SANCTIONS ON IRAN NOT WORKING...