Free Response - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

gnéft , g __ ¤-;=..= · I %
` UU 0 3 2005
. _g_jf COURT
WYVONNA M BARNETT C¥·EHK.;éE;·? g;?Ag12ONA
506 EAST MCKAMEY DEM J DEPUTY
PAYSON ARIZONA,8554I BY~—··’;·—'""'_
1928 474 5609 OR 1928 978 3203
REPRESENTING SELF.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
WYVONNAMBARNETT CASE NO 03 2566 PHX ROS
PLAINTIFF
VS PLAINTIFFS ( 2ND. } RESPONSE TO
MESA GENERAL HOSPITAL MESA GEN HOSP. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY IUDGEMENT
NOT NECESSARY FOR PLAINTIFF TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIA CASE.
THIS CASE IS TO BE DECIDED BY A JURY ....
A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AT THIS TIME IS NOT
RELEVENT AND MOTION IS PREMATURE AT BEST.
NOT ONLY HAVE DEFENDANTS (ALREADY DEFAULTED ) BY REFUSING
TO OBEY THE COURT ORDER TO HAVE THEIR EXPERT WITNESS
DEPOSITIONS IN BY AUG. 5, 2005 AS ORDERED BY HONORABLE VOSS.
.. BUT NOW THEY ARE ASKING THE COURT TO GRANT THEM A
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT BY FALSLY ACCUSING PLAINTIFF OF FAILING
TO SUPPLY THE COURT WITH EVIDANCE TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM...
DEFENDANTS HAVE STATED REPEATEDLY THAT THEY ARE ( NOT
READY TO GO TO TRIAL) AND HAVE ASKED FOR EXTENSIONS IN
THEIR LAST TWO MOTIONS ,, EVEN THO THEY HAVE HAD 22 MONTHS
TO PREPARE.
HOW THEN COULD THE COURT POSSIBLY CONTEMPLATE GRANTING
A SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF.
THIS IS DEFENDANTS SECOND ATTEMPT TO GET COURT TO GRANT
THEM A SUMMARY JUDGEMENT ( SEE PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS FIRST MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENTHDATED AUG.
31 2005
Case 2:O3—cv—O2566—ROS Document 92 Filed 10/O3/2005 Page 1 of 4

THIS SECOND MOTION is simply an attempt on the part of defendants to
avoid a trial by jury ( which is plaintiffs constitutional right) and to bypass
honorable judge Edward c voss "s order which states on page 2 article j quote "
motions on discovery matters are strongly discouraged.
Parties are directed to LRCiv 7,2 , WHICH PROHIBITS FILING DISCOVERY
MOTIONS , UNLESS PARTIES I-LAVE ( FIRST MET ) TO RESOLVE ANY
DISCOVERY DIFICULITIES
NOTE; PLAINTIFF HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT SHE IS WILLING TO
IVIEET IN A ( SAFE ) ENVIORMENT TO DISCUSS ISSUES AND EVEN
REQUESTED A PRETRIAL HEARING MANY MANY MONTHS AGO TO
TRY TO RESOLVE SOME OF THE ISSUES TO NO AVAIL. .......
.SEE ALSO ....
HONORABLE VOSS " ORDER DATED SEPT 2004 PAGE 2 ARTICLE F .
WHICH STATES ( ALL DISCOVERY ) INCLUDING ANSWERS TO
INTERROGATION, DEPOSITIONS AND REQUESTS TO SUBMIT SHALL BE
COMPLETED BY SEPT. 30 2005
ON PG3 ARTICLE K HONORABLE VOSS FUTHER STATES ...THIS
ORDER CONTEMPLATES THAT EACH PARTY WILL CONDUCT
DISCOVERY TO PERMIT COMPLETATION WITHIN THE DEADLINE ..
ANY DISCOVERY WHICH RESULTS IN INSUFFIENT TIME TO
UNDERTAKE NECESSARY ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY ..IVILL BE MET
WITH DISFAVOR.
NOTE PLAINTIFF HAS CONTINEOUSLY GIVEN THE DEFENDANTS AND
THE COURT AMPLE EVIDANCE THAT HER CASE HAS MERIT ...AND
REPEATEDLY NOTIFIED THEM THAT SHE IS READY TO GO TO TRIAL.
THIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE
GRANTED.
DEFENDANTS STILL 'TRY TO CONFUSE THE COURT BY STATING IN THEIR MOTION
THAT BASHAS AND ET ALL ARE THE DEFENDANTS THIS IS (TWO)SEPERATE
CASES ONE AGAINST BASHAS INC AND ET ALL AND ONE AGAINST MESA
GENERAL HOSPITAL HOWEVER THEY HAVE COMMON DENOMINATORS GROSS
NEGLIGENCES
ADDITIONALLY ON OCCASION MESA GENERAL HOSPITAL AND BASHAS WILL FILE
(.IOINT)MOTIONS WITH THE COURT WI-HCH IS EVEN MORE CONFUSING ..
Case 2:O3—cv—O2566—ROS Document 92 Filed 10/O3/2005 Page 2 of 4

2:,_”T.`§?FA,m_, 1 ,_ __.,§_,»!it , I . • · ···?·"“·*·‘:r wx ·· :.·\·r·r·‘t» if ~* *-2;+* ‘I!
SUCH WAS THE CASE WHEN DEFENDANTS MESA GEN. HOSP. AND BASHAS INC
FILED THEIR ( JOINT ) MOTION TO EXTEND THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE DATED
AUG. 30m 2005 . PENDING SUMMARY JUDGEMENT RULING.
TI-IAT EXTENSION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. .
PLEASE NOTE
PLAINTIFF SENT A RESPONSE TO THAT MOTION AND IT WAS FILED SEPT. I2 , 2005
THAT RESPONSE WAS PRETTY CONCLUSIVE. AND CONTRIDICTED SEVERAL OF
THEIR ALLEGATIONSN. BY WRITTEN EVIDANCE.
THE DEFENDANTS ARE STILL PASSING TI-IE BUCK REGARDING EXPERT WITNESS
TESTIMONY
DEFENDANTS BEAT THE SAME OLD DRUM, STATING IN THEIR MOTION THAT
PLAINTIFF WILL NOT OFFER ANY EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONYH
IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR PLAINTIFF TO CALL ANY EXPERT WITNESS .. DUE TO
FACT THAT DEFENDANT S CALLED ALL RELEVENT EXPERT WITNESSES ..
PLAINTIFF HAS CONSISTANTLY SENT DOCUMENDATION ( STATUTES )TO THE COURT
THAT VERIFYS THAT AS A PLAINTIFF SHE HAS A RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE
(DEFENDANTS )EXPERT WITNESSES AND FULLY INTENDS TO DO SO.
ALTHO PLAINTIFFS CASE IS A LES IPSA LOQUITURE CASE ( IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF )
CONTRARY TO STATEMENT IN DEFENDANTS MOTION PLAINTIFF HAS REPEATEDLY
FILED DOCUMENDATION THAT PROVES THERE WAS A BREACH OF THE STANDARD
OF CARE ..
THE DEFENDANTS STILL TRY TO SWAY THE COURT BUT PLAINTIFF HAS TI-IE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE HER CASE HEARD BEFORE A IURY AND LET TI-IE
LAYMANS DECIDE IF A STANDARD OF CARE WAS BREACHED
PLAINTIFF WILL NOT ADDRESS ANY MORE OF THEALLEGATIONS NOTED IN
DEFENDANTS MOTION AS IT IS JUST THE SAME OLD SAME OLD, THAT HAS BEEN
COVERED FOR THE LAST 22 MONTHS
SEE PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS MESA GENERAL HOSPITALS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT ..... FILED AUG 31 , 2005
Case 2:O3—cv—O2566-ROS Document 92 Filed 10/O3/2005 Page 3 of 4

PLAINTIFFS CASE CLEARLY MEETS THE FOUR STANDARDS FOR A MEDICAL
MALPRACTICE SUIT... WHICH IS
1 ) A PROVIDER / PATIENT RELATIONSHIP EXISTED
2 ) NEGLIGENT CARE WAS RENDERED
3 )TI-IE PATIENT SUFFERED DAMAGES OR HARM
4 ) THE DAMAGES OR HARM DONE WAS A DIRECT RESULT OF NEGLIGENT CARE.
DEFENDANTS DEFAULTED HONORABLE VOSS “S RULING BY FAILING TO SUPPLY
TI-IE COURT WITH EXPERT WITNESS DEPOSITIONS
IT STANDS TO REASON THAT THE QUICKEST AND BEST WAY TO SETTLE THIS
DISPUTE IS TO GO TO TRIAL
THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS NEXT MOTION IS TO SET A TRIAL DATE .....
DATE Zéggj >77*
A M BARNETT
COPYS SENT THIS DATE , SEPT 27 2005 TO :
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
401 WEST WASHINGTON
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
KENDHAMMER AND COLBURN
394 NORTH sm AVE.
PHOENIX ARIZONA ,85003
Case 2:O3—cv—O2566—ROS Document 92 Filed 10/O3/2005 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 92

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 92

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 92

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 92

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 4 of 4