********
04/16/2024
Open
Defamation - Libel
California
Plaintiffs Paul Scarborough and Premier Medical Transport, Inc. ("Plaintiffs") allege and aver against defendants as follows:
Plaintiffs are the victims of a relentless campaign to destroy their reputations and business. The perpetrators of this scheme are cowards, employing sophisticated methods to hide their tracks and prevent identification. Plaintiffs seek this court's assistance in ending defendants' siege, restoring Plaintiffs' good names, and punishing defendants for their abhorrent behavior.
1. Plaintiff Paul Scarborough ("Scarborough") is an individual residing in Orange County, California.
2. Plaintiff Premier Medical Transport, Inc. ("Premier") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of California, with its principal place of business in the City of Brea, Orange County, California.
3. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege these fictitiously named defendants' true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each of these fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that the damages herein alleged were proximately caused by the aforementioned defendants. Does 1 through 50 may be collectively referred to herein as "Defendants".
4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each of the Defendants is the agent, affiliate, joint venturer, and/or employee of each of the remaining Defendants and in taking the actions hereinafter alleged, each was acting within the course and scope of said agency, employment, and/or joint venture with the advance knowledge, acquiescence, or subsequent ratification of each and every remaining Defendant.
5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that, at all relevant times, Defendants acted for each other in connection with the conduct hereinafter alleged and that each of them performed the III
Page 2acts complained of herein, or breached the duties herein complained of, as agents of each other, and each is therefore fully liable for the acts of the other.
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action because Plaintiffs reside in, are incorporated in, have their main place of business in and/or conduct business in the State of California, and a substantial portion of the acts, omissions, events and transactions alleged herein occurred within the State of California. Venue is proper in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, because Defendants' injurious actions occurred in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and because Plaintiffs hereby designate the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as the place of proper venue.
7. Founded in 2008 , Premier (doing business as Premier Ambulance) provides emergency and non-emergency ambulance services throughout Southern California, including within the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego.
8. Scarborough is Premier's President. Scarborough has worked in the ambulance services field for over forty (40) years and through his tireless efforts earned a stellar reputation in the relevant community.
9. Under Scarborough's leadership, Premier's business and standing have grown by leaps and bounds. As just one example, in December 2023 , the Commission on Accreditation of Ambulance Services ("CAAS") accredited Premier, an honor bestowed on less than 2% of ambulance companies in Los Angeles County. CAAS accreditation is the gold standard for the ambulance industry.
10. Scarborough also serves as an officer of the Southern California Ambulance Association ("SCAA"), an industry trade group comprised of private emergency and non- emergency ambulance service providers. The SCAA works cooperatively with state and local governments to address issues relevant to the ambulance industry. Scarborough's leadership and work ethic make him a vital and respected member of the SCAA.
III
Page 3TERESA A. BEAUDET
Plaintiffs
PREMIER MEDICAL TRANSPORT INC
SCARBOROUGH PAUL
Defendants
DOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE
IMANOVA YANINA
EASTWESTPROTO INC.
MAXIM GORIN
Plaintiff Attorney
HARDACRE COLIN A.
Defendant Attorneys
SPERBER STEPHANIE ANNE
OUTWATER DAVID EUGENE
HAMMERS STEPHEN GREGORY
10/25/2024: Amended Complaint: Amended Complaint (1st)
Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case
10/14/2024: Minute Order: Minute Order (Case Management Conference)
5/16/2024: Minute Order: Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR PERMISSION TO CONDUCT EAR...)
Alternate Dispute Resolution Packet
10/25/2024: Summons: Summons on Complaint
4/17/2024: Notice of Case Management Conference
4/16/2024: Summons: on Complaint
10/15/2024: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name): Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)
9/18/2025: Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service
9/18/2025: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
9/18/2025: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
9/17/2025: Objection List of Unresolved Evidentiary Objections
9/12/2025: Objection Unresolved Objections to Evidence
8/28/2025: Declaration Amended Declaration of Paul Scarborough in Support of Plaintiffs' Oppositions to Defendants' Motions to Strike First Amended Complaint
7/15/2025: Order ORDER RE: DEFENDANT MAXIM GORIN'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMLAINT
8/25/2025: Minute Order (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC); Hearing on Special Motio...)
8/22/2025: Declaration Amended Declaration of Colin A Hardacre in Support of Plainitffs' Oppositions to Defendants' Motions to Strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
HearingDepartment 50; 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case Review
[-] Read LessHearingDepartment 50; 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial
[-] Read LessHearingDepartment 50; 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference
[-] Read LessHearingDepartment 50; 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case Review
[-] Read LessHearingDepartment 50; 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference
[-] Read LessHearingDepartment 50; 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion)
[-] Read LessHearingDepartment 50; 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion)
[-] Read LessDocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read LessDocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read LessDocketClerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service; Issued and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Colin A. Hardacre (Attorney); David Eugene Outwater (Attorney); Stephanie Anne Sperber (Attorney) et al.
[-] Read LessDocketDeclaration in Support of Ex Parte Application; Filed by: Paul Scarborough, an individual (Plaintiff); Premier Medical Transport, INC, a California corporation (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketEx Parte Application PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO CONDUCT EARLY DISCOVERY TO IDENTIFY DOE DEFENDANTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; Filed by: Paul Scarborough, an individual (Plaintiff); Premier Medical Transport, INC, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: DOES 1 through 50 inclusive (Defendant)
[-] Read LessDocketCase Management Conference scheduled for 10/14/2024 at 10:00 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 50
[-] Read LessDocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read LessDocketCase assigned to Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet in Department 50 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
[-] Read LessDocketComplaint; Filed by: Paul Scarborough, an individual (Plaintiff); Premier Medical Transport, INC, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: DOES 1 through 50 inclusive (Defendant)
[-] Read LessDocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Paul Scarborough, an individual (Plaintiff); Premier Medical Transport, INC, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: DOES 1 through 50 inclusive (Defendant)
[-] Read LessDocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Paul Scarborough, an individual (Plaintiff); Premier Medical Transport, INC, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: DOES 1 through 50 inclusive (Defendant)
[-] Read LessDocketAlternate Dispute Resolution Packet; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read LessDocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read LessCase Number: *******9594 Hearing Date: June 24, 2025 Dept: 50
|   PAUL SCARBOROUGH,  Plaintiff,  vs. Does 1 through 50, inclusive,  Defendants.  |    Case No.:  |    *******9594  |  
|   Hearing Date:  |  June 24, 2025  |  |
|   Hearing Time:  |    8:30 a.m.  |  |
|   ORDER RE: DEFENDANT EASTWESTPROTO, INC.'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.  |  ||
|   |    |  
 
The Anti-SLAPP motion to strike brought by Defendants Eastwestproto, Inc. ("Eastwestproto") is continued as set forth below.  
Eastwestproto interposed 31 evidentiary objections. Due to the voluminous number of objections, the hearing on the motion will be continued to a date that will be set at the Hearing on Objections discussed below. 
The Court orders the parties to meet and confer by telephone or in person in a serious and good faith effort to resolve and eliminate the objections. The only objections that should remain are those that pertain to material evidence regarding material issues. Keeping the rules of evidence in mind, the parties should be able to reduce the objections to just a few. If any material objections remain unresolved, the parties are to set them forth in a joint statement with the text, the objection, and the argument of each side in favor of their respective positions regarding the remaining material objections, along with a space for a ruling. 
The joint statement must be filed on or before _______ with a courtesy copy delivered to Department 50. The Court will review any remaining objections with the parties at a hearing on _______________ at 2:00 p.m. (the "Hearing on Objections"). The date for the hearing on the motion will be set at the Hearing on Objections. 
If necessary, based upon the resolutions reached during the meet and confer process and/or at the Hearing on Objections, the parties may respectively file and serve revised briefing and evidence. The revised evidence may eliminate objectionable material; however, no new evidence or new argument is to be submitted unless it is as a result of compromises reached during the meet and confer process. In the event that revised briefing and evidence is necessary, the Court will discuss with the parties a briefing schedule for the revised briefing at the Hearing on Objections.  
Defendant Eastwestproto is ordered to give notice of this Order.  
DATED: June 24, 2025   ________________________________
Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet
Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
Case Number: *******9594 Hearing Date: May 29, 2025 Dept: 50
|   PAUL SCARBOROUGH, et al.,  Plaintiffs,  vs. EASTWESTPROTO, INC., et al.   Defendants.  |    Case No.:  |    *******9594  |  
|   Hearing Date:  |  May 29, 2025  |  |
|   Hearing Time:  |    10:00 a.m.  |  |
|   ORDER RE:  MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER  |  ||
|   |    |  
Defendant Maxim Gorin moves to quash ten subpoenas for production of business records issued by Plaintiffs and for a protective order.
Defendant's motion will be continued to a new date as set forth below. NO HEARING WILL TAKE PLACE ON MARCH 29, 2025.  (Note: Dept. 50 also will be dark that day.)
Pursuant to the Court's power to "amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice" (Code Civ. Proc., ; 128, subd. (a)(8)), the Court orders the parties and, if needed, the third parties subject to the subpoenas in this case, to participate in a meet and confer with the Court ("Informal Discovery Conference" or "IDC"). Lead or other designated counsel for the parties and third parties with full authority are ordered to participate in person in an IDC. After consulting with opposing and third-party counsel regarding available dates, Plaintiff must make a prompt reservation for the IDC using the Court's online reservation system. Plaintiff must file Dept. 50's one-page IDC form in the department seven days prior to the IDC,[1] and the responding parties may file the same form in the department setting forth a response three days prior to the IDC. COURTESY COPIES OF THE IDC STATEMENTS ARE TO BE DELIVERED TO DEPT. 50 CONCURRENTLY WITH THEIR filing. 
Once Plaintiff has confirmed an IDC date, Plaintiff must use the Court's online reservation system to continue the motion to a post-IDC discovery hearing date. The parties and third party are ordered to have with them whatever materials are needed to make the IDC session productive and successful. Prior to the IDC date, lead or other designated counsel for the parties and third party, with full authority, are to meet and confer, in person or via telephone in a further attempt to resolve as many of the issues as possible before the IDC. (See CRC Rule 3.670, subd. (f)(2).) If the parties resolve their discovery disputes before the IDC date, Plaintiff is ordered to take both the IDC and the motion off calendar as soon as possible.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this Plaintiff.
DATED: 
Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet
Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
[1] Be sure to comply with the filing requirements of the reservation system so the reservation is not deleted for failing to file the requisite documents in time.