Less than one month later, a federal district court declared Bravo a vexatious litigant based on his filing nine federal lawsuits pertaining to matters unrelated to this case. Cigna transferred Bravo to another dentist, and stated it was refunding the $60 alleged overpayment as a customer courtesy.īravo then filed a lawsuit in propria persona against Dr. In response, Cigna informed Bravo that it was conducting an investigation into his concerns. Bravo complained to Cigna regarding this extra charge and claimed Dr. Ismaj, implanted a crown and charged Bravo $60 over Cigna's standard fee. 2 For reasons we explain, we agree Bravo was entitled to an oral hearing, but find the denial of this right did not constitute prejudicial error. 1 Bravo appeals this order, contending: (1) there was no pending litigation when the motion was raised (2) he was denied his right to a hearing and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support the determination he was a vexatious litigant. After the court granted defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings, defendants successfully moved for an order declaring Bravo a vexatious litigant and requiring that Bravo obtain permission from the presiding judge before filing any new litigation. Israel Ismaj, and his dental insurer, Cigna Dental Health (Cigna), for fraud and other related allegations. Victor Bravo filed a lawsuit against his dentist, Dr. Fleming for Defendant and Respondent Israel Ismaj. Higgs, Fletcher & Mack and John Morris for Defendant and Respondent Cigna Dental Group.īaker & McKenzie and George E.
ISRAEL ISMAJ et al., Defendants and Respondents.
0 kommentar(er)
