Either Judge Susan Weaver or the Friday Firm Attorney Is Wrong
A bunch of doctors at UAMS really screwed up. Instead of saying, “Sorry, our insurance will make it all better,” they said “so, sue us.” We did. Now they are trying to wiggle out on procedural bullshit.
Then UAMS Counsel Sheri Robinson refused to give us addresses to serve summons on the UAMS employees.
We made a timely motion for an extension of time to serve summons and it was denied. The judge said we needed to show specific efforts made to serve each defendant. But we were allowed to amend our motion and file it “timely” after the 120 day limitation period expired.
Now, Dr. Erika Petersen, who is paid $600,000 per year, is saying that she should be dismissed with prejudice because we were too late in serving the summons. She is represented by the Friday Firm. One of the main classrooms at Bowen School of Law is called the Friday Courtroom. That is no coincidence.
Here is the perplexing part. A few years back, an ex-boyfriend sued me and a trust, hoping to take real estate we had agreed to split 50/50 if we broke up. The judge on the case, Susan Weaver, gave him an extension of time to serve summons. He said the trust and I were dodging service. He didn’t say how. He had not tried to serve us. There was not even a summons issued for the trust. But Judge Susan Weaver granted the extension of time.
It will be interesting to see if the UAMS professor gets away with – not murder, but false imprisonment.
Here are the docs the released prisoner and I filed today. You can download them and pass them around.
What Kind of People Work at UAMS?
Stay tuned for part two.
This is the reply that you can download above verbatim, but one word was left out of the filed copy.
COME NOW Plaintiffs, Laura Hammett and Sean Lynn, appearing pro se, in reply to the response of Defendants Joseph F. Margolick, Britney Beumeler, and Benjamin L. Davis and state as follows:
- Defendant Dr. Joseph F. Margoick, Assistant Professor in the Division of Trauma and Critical Care at UAMS, forced Sean Lynn to stay in a $10,000 per night room at UAMS, and ordered that Sean be injected with seroquel to treat “agitation.” Pls.’ Ex. 18, thumb drive filed in records, Bates No. PF. 001757. The agitation was caused by being falsely imprisoned and battered by Dr. Margolick and the other UAMS “Team.” Dr. Margolick called it “hyperactive delirium.” Pls.’ Ex. 18, thumb drive filed in records, Bates No. PF. 001753. Dr. Margolick might as well call Sean’s anxiety “drapetomania.” He reviewed and confirmed numerous diagnosis by residents of “agitation.” Cf. id., at PF. 001764 referring to 62.
- Now that Dr. Margolick will not profit financially, Dr. Margolick suggests Laura, Sean’s mother, just do the work responding to licensed attorneys with clerks and paralegals. Dr. Margolick failed to file a petition in court to confine Sean, bind him naked to a hospital cot, and drug him; he refuses to confess that his conduct was illegal and make amends; his insurance said they investigated and found no negligence; and now he blames Sean and Laura for filing a lawsuit. Dr. Margolick seems to suggest that Laura is to work without any break and take benzodiazepines for the stress.
- Defendant Dr. Benjamin L. Davis, Assistant Professor at UAMS, was attending provider on January 13, 2024 when Sean was brought to UAMS after jumping off a 10-foot-high rung of a falling ladder. Dr. Benjamin Davis and the staff he supervised had Sean’s phone and wallet. Dr. Davis did [not] direct any effort to find Sean’s family. Instead, he participated in non-consensual fentanyl injection and used four-point restraints. id., at PF. 001150, 1590.
- Now, Dr. Benjamin Davis insinuates that Laura visiting Sean is a nefarious purpose for asking for mental and physical health break. That is in character for a man who would not allow a mother to be a surrogate because she did not agree with the doctor’s opinions.
- Defendant Britney M. Beumeler, received the Chris Hackler Award for Medical Ethics at UAMS in 2021. Yet she lied to Laura on January 21, 2024, to allow her to imprison Sean without the public seeing the physical takedown when Sean had escaped to the lobby. Nurse Beumeler called Laura and said the police were going to arrest Sean for leaving and convinced Laura to talk Sean into returning to the room. The police told Laura that they never had a single incident report written about Sean. And the discharge note said the police told the doctors and nurses that they could not stop Sean from leaving.
- Nurse Beumeler has an Instagram page that is open to the public. She has about 400 pictures of her family, including four children. It is unbelievable that Nurse Beumeler would object to Laura and Sean spending time together where they are not writing documents about how Nurse Beumeler forced Sean to take strong controlled substances against his will and tied him up for days at a time.
- But there it is in writing.
- Laura used Clonazepam over the past few days. There are side effects such as digestive issues and grogginess. If not for this litigation, Laura would be with Sean right now. All the attorneys can and do take time away from work. All the defendants are allowed a break. It is not unreasonable for two people who have to relive the most traumatic two weeks of their lives, over and over, to also be given a break.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an Order staying all proceedings and deadlines affecting Plaintiffs from June 20, 2026, through June 30, 2026, and granting such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
Just How Caring and Loving Was Dr. Joseph Margolick When He Falsely Imprisoned and Battered Sean Lynn?
This letter is mostly self-explanatory. So, I will post it verbatim and try to enjoy this glorious day (under the influence of Clonazepam.)
June 7, 2026
Laura Hammett
Bohemian_books@yahoo.com
To Glenn Ritter by email
Dear Mr. Ritter,
My apologies. I inadvertently did not calendar responses to Defendant Margolick’s first set of interrogatories and requests for production to me, and the second set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents to Mr. Lynn. The set to me was emailed on April 13, 2026. When I cross checked what documents were pending when we wrote our granted motion for extension of time to respond to MTDs, I only looked at my “documents filed” file. Interrogatories and requests for production are not filed.
I was also overwhelmed and under extreme pressure, with many documents and finals approaching. You would not agree to an extension of time to respond, requested from you on April 14, 2026, and I forgot to add the interrogatories in the request the Court granted, because I had not added them to the calendar.
As I informed you many times, from the complaint through our motion for a stay, I am suffering from acute anxiety – caused in substantial part from the incident complained of and remembering it over and over again to force your client and the other defendants to compensate us appropriately. To push through the documents that are on my calendar, I am taking .5 Mg. Clonazepam as needed prescribed by Cara Meckfessel, APRN on 11/26/2025. I received 20 doses on that day. In the past 24 hours I have taken 2 doses. I have 10 doses left.
That means I took 8 doses in over six months. I anticipate using the other 12 doses in this two week period.
I do not think taking these pharmaceuticals is safe. That is why I need time to regulate my cortisol naturally.
Please allow Sean and me to answer the requests 30 days after July 1, 2026. We will give reasonable answers, but it is not possible to answer some questions. For example, “INTERROGATORY NO. 6: State the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all persons who know anything about the alleged incidents giving rise to your claims in this lawsuit.”
I could not possibly remember or identify every person who knows anything about the alleged incidents. My blog has been read by about 2,300 discrete visitors in each of 2024 and 2025. There have been almost 2,000 discreet visitors in the first half of 2026. I have no idea who most of these people are.
If you are talking about only the people who eye witnessed the incident, I also don’t know who was there. The UAMS surveillance videos were destroyed, and it would take discovery for me to determine some of the people in the videos that I was able to take. The medical report is incomplete, but there are over 72 names of people involved.
And I have no idea yet which attorneys advised or did not advise Dr. Margolick and the other UAMS medical providers to hold and treat Sean without consent and without a court order. Nor do I know what administrators were aware of the situation.
Therefore, we request that we be able to make the objections we could make if I did not inadvertently and excusably neglect to respond and remind Sean to respond in a timely manner.
Further, though we did not formally submit the answers to the requests, the objections and answers to most of the interrogatories and requests for production are including in the production made on May 13, 2026.
Without your client’s stipulation to this extension, we have two ways to proceed.
First, we will move the Court to allow for the extension.
Second, we will voluntarily dismiss Defendant Joseph Margolick without prejudice and file claims against him arising from the same transaction and occurrence in the Federal Court under 42 USC 1983.
It is our intention, regardless of this issue, to file the 1983 suit, which has a three year statute of limitations, against all defendants who are dismissed by the Court here, a few who are not dismissed, because of the potential appeal of the extension of time to serve summons and the sufficiency of summons, and to add other defendants not yet named in both this suit and the 1983 suit. (All before January 12, 2027.)
I will add again, it is best if all the parties voluntarily enter ADR.
That would benefit me, because when this massive lawsuit is put to rest, I would have a chance to regulate my system.
It would benefit Sean, because he would have enough money to live on modestly for the rest of his life and would not need to try to find work with his disabilities or take the risk involved and spend the grueling hours to be a professional poker player.
The individual defendants would not need to worry about paying for the damages they caused by intentional conduct.
The state would not have the huge expense that this litigation is causing.
The University can possibly mitigate some of the damage done to its reputation. Especially the University might adopt some of the equitable relief for which we are asking.
The University would not face a potential appellate decision that deems the Supreme Court approved summons as insufficient. Such a decision opens the door to countless actions to set aside default judgments that were obtained in UAMS debt collection cases using the identical summons.
The University and State in general will not need to pay for the damages that are not covered by insurance.
It is difficult for me to understand why General Counsel and the individual defendants are not advocating for indemnity for the negligent acts of its employees, which would probably satisfy the plaintiffs in compromise.
Thank you for your consideration,
/s/ Laura Hammett
Laura Hammett
The only ones getting rich are the attorneys. II.
Yesterday, 24 people downloaded a document I first posted in 2024. Or, one person downloaded it 24 times. There is no way of telling. Here is the document that seemed to fascinate.
This was an appropriate document to read in conjunction with yesterday’s post: The only ones getting rich are the attorneys. And the doctors.
I wrote the document almost two years ago. It was a year before starting law school. In particular, it was a year before starting Civ Pro I. The concept discussed in this Ninth Circuit letter brief was taught in Civ Pro I.
My letter brief sat on the court’s desk for two years. A month ago, Ninth Circuit Justices JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, LAWRENCE VANDYKE and SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR. decided that the federal court did not have jurisdiction after all, but that I should still pay the opposing parties’ attorney fees on an anti-SLAPP motion for claims I dismissed voluntarily because they were void ab initio. The attorney defendants and their attorneys should have and probably did know that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the entire case – not just the claims against the attorneys that were void ab initio.
I wanted to post the court’s order for you, but I am having trouble saving a copy as a pdf. Here it is cut and pasted.
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAURA LYNN HAMMETT, an individual,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
No. 22-56003
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-00605-LL-AHG
v.
MARY E. SHERMAN, et al.,
Defendants – Appellees.
MEMORANDUM*
MAY 15 2026
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Linda Lopez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 30, 2026**
Before: RAWLINSON, VANDYKE, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.
In this diversity action, Laura Hammett (Hammett) appeals the district court’s dismissal of her Third Amended Complaint (TAC) for failure to state a claim and the denial of her request for leave to amend, her request for limited scope representation, and her Motion to Vacate Void Orders Granting Attorneys’ Fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
Hammett resides in Arkansas and “owns a 14.1571% interest in [Silver Strand Plaza, LLC (SSP)],” which is a named defendant. Hammett’s TAC asserted two causes of action: “(1) specific performance of [Hammett’s] right to inspect [SSP] company records and (2) dissolution of SSP.” Hammett also sought “declaratory and injunctive relief . . . for an inspection of financial records of SSP since 2013 . . . as well as costs and attorney’s fees.”
Previously, Hammett voluntarily dismissed claims against Defendants-Appellees Alan N. Goldberg, Ellis R. Stern, and Stern & Goldberg, Patrick C. McGarrigle, and McGarrigle, Kenney & Zampiello, a Professional Law Corporation (the Attorney Defendants-Appellees). The district court subsequently granted the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants-Appellees Diane Dennis, Linda R. Kramer, Erik Hunsaker, and SSP, and denied Hammett leave to amend. Hammett timely appealed.
- “We have jurisdiction to determine whether we have jurisdiction to hear the case. We review questions of our jurisdiction de novo. . . .” Pizzuto v. Tewalt, 136 F.4th 855, 863 (9th Cir. 2025), as amended (citations omitted).
“Every federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts . . .” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004), as amended (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
“For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens. . . .” 3123 SMB LLC v. Horn, 880 F.3d 461, 465 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Defendants-Appellees Alan N. Goldberg, Ellis R. Stern, and Stern & Goldberg acknowledge that a limited liability company adopts the citizenship of its members.¹ Hammett is a citizen of Arkansas, and a member of SSP. Thus, SSP is also a citizen of Arkansas, see Horn, 880 F.3d at 465, and the complete diversity requirement is not satisfied. See Rosenwald v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 152 F.4th 1167, 1174 (9th Cir. 2025) (“Section 1332(a) requires complete diversity—no plaintiff may be from the same state as any defendant. . . .”) (citations omitted).
In the absence of complete diversity, the district court had no jurisdiction to decide this case. See id. at 1185. Thus, we must vacate all orders going to the merits and remand for the district court to dismiss without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.²
- “A final determination of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction . . . does not automatically wipe out all proceedings had in the district court at a time when the district court operated under the misapprehension that it had jurisdiction. . . .” Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 137 (1992); see also San Diego Cnty. Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union, 65 F.4th 1012, 1034 (9th Cir. 2023), as amended.
For example, “[w]hen the district court grants a fee award that is collateral to the merits, it does not risk adjudicating the merits of a case or controversy over which it lacks jurisdiction.” San Diego Cnty. Credit Union, 65 F.4th at 1033 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Thus, we have jurisdiction to review the award of attorneys’ fees. See id.
- “[W]e review questions of law concerning entitlement to attorneys’ fees de novo . . .” Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., 52 F.4th 1054, 1064 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Whether a party is a “prevailing party” is also reviewed de novo. See Weissburg v. Lancaster Sch. Dist., 591 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010).
The Attorney Defendants-Appellees request that we exercise our authority under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to sever Hammett’s claims against them “in order to determine the appeal of the attorney fee order.”
However, because the fee award is “collateral to the merits” of the case, we have jurisdiction over the appeal of the attorneys’ fees award without severing the claims. San Diego Cnty. Credit Union, 65 F.4th at 1033.
The district court awarded attorneys’ fees to the Attorney Defendants-Appellees under Section 425.16(c) of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Hammett does not challenge the district court’s analysis under Coltrain v. Shewalter, 66 Cal. App. 4th 94, 101 (1998), as modified, which applied Section 425.16(c).
Under Coltrain, a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal raises a presumption that the defendants are prevailing parties, absent evidence from the plaintiff rebutting the presumption. See id. at 107. Hammett failed to rebut the presumption that the Attorney Defendants-Appellees were prevailing parties. Rather, she expressed her intent to refile the action.
Thus, the district court did not err in determining that the Attorney Defendants-Appellees were prevailing parties, and awarding them attorneys’ fees. See Nerio Mejia v. O’Malley, 120 F.4th 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 2024); see also Coltrain, 66 Cal. App. 4th at 107.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION.³
- This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
¹ Defendants-Appellees Patrick McGarrigle and McGarrigle, Kenney, & Zampiello joined this acknowledgment.
² And “[s]ince this case should never have made it into federal court, we have no reason to address” Hammett’s remaining arguments. Weeping Hollow Ave. Tr. v. Spencer, 831 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2016).
³ The motion for clarification of how to augment the excerpts (Dkt. #34) is denied, and the motion for leave to file supplemental authority (Dkt. #45) is denied as moot.
I absolutely challenged the District Court’s analysis under Coltrain in the underlying appeal. The letter brief, ordered a year after the appellate brief was filed, only ordered the issue of diversity jurisdiction to be briefed. Because a lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be overcome, I must now challenge the ruling on the appeal one more time.
The only ones getting rich are the attorneys. And the doctors.
A man was taken by ambulance to UAMS after an injury. There was nothing a hospital bed could do to help him heal. He wanted to go home.
UAMS said no.
Instead, they decided he would remain in one of the hospital’s most expensive rooms. UAMS says the room costs about $10,000 per night. For uninsured patients, they generously discount it to roughly $4,300 per night. Medicaid ultimately paid about $2,000 per night.
The injured man said, “No. Stop.”
It was too late.
Nurse Nathan Ernst had already injected him with fentanyl.
The patient had a severe reaction to the opioid. Not as severe as his brother’s reaction to a single dose of pharmaceutical methadone, which killed him, but severe nonetheless.
What happened during the next 13 hours may never be known.
The family was never contacted.
The surveillance footage was deleted.
When family members finally located him, they found him naked and restrained to a hospital cot.
Two weeks later, he was finally allowed to leave against medical advice.
UAMS and the doctors and nurses the man accuses of falsely imprisoning and battering him have refused to provide any compensation.
According to the lawsuit, they terrorized him, humiliated him, caused complete hearing loss in one ear, caused hyponatremia—possibly through cerebral salt wasting after dehydration—deprived him of sleep, starved him, and, during one escape attempt, slammed his head into a wall.
Then, after he left the hospital against medical advice and did not die at home, UAMS’s response was essentially: “See? We saved his life.”
The man is now suing.
No attorney has been willing to take on Arkansas’s highest-paid public employees, so he is representing himself.
The doctors, of course, have lawyers.
One of the firms representing them, Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP, sent notice that it intended to subpoena records from the man’s post-hospital employers.
The man moved to quash the subpoenas.
He is not seeking lost wages. The doctors and nurses who had possession of his phone and wallet while he was restrained in the ICU made no effort to locate his family. But now they wanted employment records.
They wanted to know whether he was a cheerful employee.
Whether he complained about PTSD.
Whether he talked about being treated worse than a prisoner of war for two weeks.
And, incidentally, the same people who attempted to generate a medical bill approaching his entire net worth also wanted access to his Social Security number.
After the motion to quash had been fully briefed, the attorneys agreed to remove the Social Security number request from the subpoenas. The motion was then withdrawn.
The first subpoena response arrived today.
The employer’s answer was simple: “0” records.
The man was hired through a temp agency.
Three days of work went into preparing and litigating the motion to quash. Then attorneys at a prominent law firm spent additional time preparing an opposition. The insurance company paid for the attorneys time.
What did anyone learn about what happened inside UAMS in 2024?
Nothing.
No new facts emerged.
No additional accountability was created.
No closer examination of the events occurred.
The only people who unquestionably benefited from all the work, filings, arguments, and billable hours were the lawyers.
They got paid.
Would You Trust These Doctors With Your Life? Hell No!
My son had the misfortune of being taken to the UAMS Emergency Department after suffering a head injury at work.
After a CT scan, Sean was told that surgery was not necessary, but the doctors wanted to keep him for observation. Their decision to admit him to the ICU was based, at least in part, on an error in the EMT’s paperwork.
The EMT reported that Sean had fallen 35 feet.
Sean did not look like someone who had fallen 35 feet. He did not act like someone who had fallen 35 feet. For a person to fall 35 feet and be in the condition Sean was in would have bordered on a miracle.
Yet none of the “brain surgeons” at UAMS thought to ask Sean how far he had actually fallen.
They did ask him about his pain level. Sean pointed to the “2” on the FACES pain scale.
For me, a 2 out of 10 is a stubbed toe. I imagine a 35-foot fall would feel more like a 15 out of 10.
Nevertheless, doctors earning well over half a million dollars a year decided Sean needed to remain in a room that costs approximately $10,000 per night for observation. They knew he had no insurance. They also mistakenly believed the expensive home where he was working belonged to him.
Sean said no.
Dr. Jordan Takasugi, Dr. Nolan Bruce, Dr. Natalie J. Applebaum, and Dr. Karrar Aljiboori were all involved in the decision to force Sean to stay. Without consent, without attempting to contact his family, and despite both verbal and physical resistance, the doctors caused Nurse Nathan Ernst to inject Sean with fentanyl.
UAMS destroyed the Emergency Room video recordings, leaving no reliable record of what happened next.
By the time Sean’s now ex-girlfriend found him the following day, he was naked and tied to a hospital bed.
There was no injury to his torso whatsoever. Why wasn’t he given shorts or pajama bottoms? Was it about control? Was it something worse?
The sedation and restraints continued for two weeks.
I did not fight harder for Sean’s release because I never saw him before the drugs were administered. Every person who spoke to me in Sean’s room insisted that UAMS had given him nothing stronger than acetaminophen for a headache.
That was not true.
The UAMS team told me my son might behave like a drugged 17-year-old for the rest of his life. They also told me he could die at any moment.
Arkansas law requires medical providers to obtain consent from the patient, an authorized surrogate, or a court before confining a patient, administering medication, or performing medical procedures. My understanding is that these requirements apply broadly, even to routine interventions such as blood pressure checks or Tylenol administration.
More than 82 UAMS staff members participated in Sean’s confinement. No petition was filed with a court. No counsel was appointed. No judicial process occurred.
When I objected, I was removed from Sean’s room.
When I attempted to record video, I was threatened with removal from the hospital.
Sean and I have now filed suit against UAMS and the employees we believe committed crimes against him. UAMS Police have refused to pursue criminal charges. UAMS also refused to provide addresses needed to serve the defendants.
We filed a motion requesting additional time to complete service. The motion was denied because the court ruled that we had not specifically documented our efforts to serve each defendant. Fortunately, the judge allowed us to refile.
That meant drafting 82 separate paragraphs, one for each defendant.
For example: “We requested the address of Dr. Elizabeth Brown, and UAMS refused to provide it unless we agreed to a protective order allowing UAMS to designate virtually any information it chose as confidential.”
Dr. Jennings Boyette and Dr. Sriram Navuluri, supported by others involved in Sean’s confinement, have asked the court to dismiss the claims against them because they were not served within the required time.
Their position appears to be this:
If hospital employees confine you, administer dangerous drugs against your will, and hold you without court authorization, they face no consequences unless you successfully navigate every procedural requirement necessary to sue them afterward.
They do not need to file a petition before taking your liberty.
They do not need to inform you of your rights.
They do not need to provide court-appointed counsel.
And they can still bill you for the treatment.
But if you seek compensation for the harm they caused, you had better file every document correctly, meet every deadline, and properly serve every defendant—or they will argue that your case should never be heard at all.
A Higher Law 