 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mir v. Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center2/24/2003
of decedent Bernardino Ruedas, who was a member of an employee group health care plan administered by FHP. The district court exercised its removal jurisdiction pursuant to ERISA preemption, and subsequently granted summary judgment for FHP, concluding that, by filing the instant action, Mir had breached the terms of a settlement agreement reached in a prior action between Mir and FHP (`MIR 1') that involved the identical dispute. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1291, and we affirm." (Ibid., fn. omitted.)
The Ninth Circuit found that Mir's contentions "that the district court erred by (1) exercising its removal jurisdiction; (2) granting summary judgment for FHP; (3) awarding FHP attorney's fees against Mir for breach of the settlement agreement in MIR 1; and (4) denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction . . . lack merit." (164 F.3d 631.) The court concluded "that the district court properly granted summary judgment for FHP, because the uncontroverted facts resulting from Mir's failure to file an opposition to FHP's summary judgment motion established that Mir had breached the settlement agreement in MIR 1 when he instituted the instant action against FHP. . . . [ ] We also conclude that the district court's award of attorney's fees to FHP was proper, because the settlement agreement in MIR 1 provided that the prevailing party in subsequent litigation over the agreement would be entitled to recover its attorney's fees . . . and Mir defaulted on FHP's counterclaim for damages, thereby admitting the allegations contained therein. . . . [ ] Finally, we conclude that the district court properly denied Mir's Rule 60(b) motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Mir filed the motion after he had appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for FHP to this court. . . . [ ] Mir's remaining contention regarding FHP's purported sanctionable conduct in district court lacks merit." (164 F.3d 631.)
In an apparent second appeal brought by Mir arising out of the same district court case, the Ninth Circuit construed a January 24, 2000, letter from Mir as a motion to dismiss and dismissed this second appeal. (Order filed Feb. 2, 2000 (9th Cir. No. 99-56871; Dist. Ct. No. CV-95- 07523-JSL).)
6. Mir v. Little India Grill et al. (Mun. Ct., Los Cerritos Judicial Dist., L.A. County, 1997, No. 94C00403) Mir v. Municipal Court (Los Cerritos) (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 1995, No. BS035564); Mir v. Superior Court (Dec. 1, 1995, B097414 [petn. denied summarily; 2D/1])
In propria persona, Mir filed a personal injury case against a restaurant, apparently became enraptured with the possibility of exponentially enlarging his damages claim, and lost his case after unsuccessfully seeking appellate review.
a. Trial Court Proceedings:
On February 7, 1994, Mir filed in propria persona a complaint in the Municipal Court (Los Cerritos Judicial District) against Little India Grill and its owners alleging that he suffered negligent injury when on February 8, 1993, he "purchased and consumed candied fennel seeds which is a digestant and mouth fresher after meal . . . crushed under his teeth a piece of rock . . . . [that] fractured . . . one molar."
Alleging poor advice from an attorney, Mir moved to amend his complaint regarding damages and to have the case removed to superior court. The municipal court (the Honorable Joseph A. Farina) denied his motions on July 7, 1995.
Mir then filed on September 11, 1995, in the superior court, a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition to overturn the municipal court's ruling on the motions. The superior court (the Honorable Madge S. Wat
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|