Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 19PSCV00741, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 19PSCV00741    Hearing Date: April 22, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment is DENIED WITH prejudice as to special damages re: DINGZHI CHEN, PEIYU CHEN, and HELEN LIU and DENIED WITHOUT prejudice re: Yiming Chen and Yan Yan and DENIED WITHOUT prejudice as to general damages. Plaintiffs have failed, despite four attempts, to prove-up their damages and as to  DINGZHI CHEN, PEIYU CHEN, and HELEN LIU, their recent declarations contradict the previous declarations (that they provided receipts but now claim they paid in cash), raise serious concerns about the credibility of their claims. As for general damages, Plaintiffs are afforded one more attempt. 

Background

This case arises from an alleged medical scam. Plaintiffs Yiming Chen, Helen Liu, Yan Yan, Peiyu Chen, Dingzhi Chen, Phoebe Noor (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows: Between 2017 and the present, Defendant Hourong Zhang (“Defendant Zhang”) appeared on various platforms portraying herself as a “doctor” who was capable of treating many different types of medical problems. These advertisements were aimed at the Chinese-American communities within Southern California and focused on the use of Chinese herbal treatment techniques along with various modern medical machines. (Complaint ¶3.) The above advertisements were to promote Shangqing Medical Center, which was owned and controlled by Defendant Zhang. When individuals then sought medical treatment from Defendant Zhang, every customer’s treatment plan centered around Defendant Zhang’s findings that the customers had too many toxins in their bodies and they needed to detox their bodies. (Complaint ¶5.) Defendant Zhang claimed that her special detoxification treatment would cure all the customer’s medical problems. Customers were then asked to undergo several weeks or months of detoxification treatment at the Defendants’ medical clinic. (Complaint ¶¶5,6.) The main treatment provided by the Defendants involved smearing a cream concoction on the body and then wrapping the individual in several blankets until the person sweats out the “toxins” within his or her body. (Complaint ¶7.) Plaintiff Peiyu Chen suffered severe burns to her stomach as a result of treatment she sought for her insomnia and gynecological issues. Plaintiff Helen Liu relied on Defendants’ representations that he could help with weight loss, but she now needs legitimate treatment for the effects of Defendant standing on her stomach in the course of said treatment. Plaintiff Yan Yan sought treatment for her acid reflux, which has remained the same. Plaintiff Dingzhi Chen relied on Defendants’ representations that they could help with Plaintiff’s genetic heart, liver, and stomach issues, but his conditions have remained the same. Plaintiff Yiming Chen relied upon Defendants’ representations that Defendant Zhang would be able to cure her lung cancer, which has only worsened and the treatments have allegedly caused severe ulcerations above her genital region. Plaintiffs allege that these treatments were unregulated and untested, and that Defendant Zhang is not a licensed medical doctor nor an herbal medicine doctor. (Complaint ¶8.)  Plaintiffs seek in this case a return of the money they paid, reimbursement for the work they missed for the fake treatment and pain/suffering associated with the treatment they received.

On August 20, 2019, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants Zhang, Yeqing Lu, Qihe Zhang, Shanqing Medical Inc., TCMUSA Medical, Inc., Jasmine Garden, Inc., and Does 1 through 50 for:

1. Intentional Misrepresentation of Facts/Concealment,

2. Negligent Misrepresentation of Facts,

3. Unfair Business Practice,

4. False Advertising,

5. Battery, and

6. Negligence

Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief is as follows:

For compensatory damages according to proof; Restitution and disgorgement of profit according to proof; Injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from fraudulent acts alleged in the complaint; for punitive and treble damages in an amount to punish Defendants and deter others from engaging in similar misconduct; for attorneys’ fees according to proof; For the cost of suit incurred herein; and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. (Complaint p. 17.)

On October 8, 2021, Defendant Zhang filed a General Denial.

On October 9, 2021, Defendants Shanqing Medical Inc., TCMUSA Medical Inc. and Jasmin Garden Inc. filed a General Denial.

On November 13, 2021, Plaintiff Phoebe Noor sought dismissal of herself from the Complaint.

On August 3, 2021, the court (before the Honorable Gloria White-Brown) filed a Notice of Bench Trial and an OSC re Sanctions for Defendants failure to appear at multiple status conferences in this matter.

On August 4, 2021, the matter regarding OSC Re: Sanctions for Defendants' Failure to Appear; Non-Jury Trial were called for hearing. The court’s Minute Order reflects that Judge Gloria White-Brown struck the general denials of the corporate Defendants and entered default as to those corporate defendants on that date. The Minute Order also stated that “[o]n the Court's own motion, the Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions for Defendants' Failure to Appear scheduled for 08/04/2021 is continued to 08/16/21 at 08:30 AM in Department J at Pomona Courthouse South. The Order to Show Cause is continued for possible terminating sanctions. On the Court's own motion, the Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/04/2021 is continued to 10/18/21 at 08:30 AM in Department J at Pomona Courthouse South.”

On August 16, 2021, the court struck the general denials of Defendants Hourang Zhang, Qihe Zhang and Yiming Chen.

On October 15, 2021, Plaintiffs sought entry of court judgment (CIV-100 form) against Defendants Huorong Zhang, Yeqing Lu, Heqi Zhang, Shanqing Medical, Inc., Jasmine Garden, Inc. and TCUSA Medical Inc. That same day, Plaintiffs filed their respective Statement of Damages and Declarations in support thereof.

On March 22, 2022, the court denied Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment without prejudice.  

On August 30, 2023, Plaintiffs dismissed Yeqing Lu; Qihe Zhang; Shanqing Medical, Inc; TCMUSA Medical Inc. and Jasmin Garden, Inc.

On September 1, 2023, the court denied another of Plaintiffs’ applications for default judgment.

On October 20, 2023, the court denied another of Plaintiffs’ applications for default judgment but continued the hearing pursuant to an oral request by Plaintiff’s Counsel.

Discussion

Previously, Plaintiffs sought entry of default judgment against Defendant Hourong Zhang in the amount of $471,896.00. The court, however, denied the application for insufficient evidence, which drew into question the credibility of the claims.

Specifically, the court noted that Plaintiffs seek compensation for lost wages but offered no evidence of them working (wage/salary, W2 forms, paystubs, etc.).[1] (See Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 272-286.) Plaintiffs appear to no longer seek damages for lost wages, perhaps suggesting their previous attempt at such recovery was unfounded.

As for pain and suffering, the court noted that “they all seek large sums for pain and suffering” but Plaintiffs offered “no explanation as to how they calculated their noneconomic damages.” (See 1/24/24 Ruling.) While “[t]he inquiry is inherently subjective and not easily amenable to concreate measurement.” (Pearly v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 475, 491),

As for declarations, the court noted that there were inconsistencies with the treatments received (e.g., both Yan Yan and Dinghzi Chen went in for a detox treatment but received hysterectomies).

Now, however, the defect of insufficient evidence remains. And with what amounts to conflicting declarations than the previous applications, Plaintiffs have not proven their damages.

Plaintiffs now, instead of $471,896.00, seek a total of $312,067.00 in damages: $112,067.00 in special damages and $200,000.00 in general damages. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ Statement of the Case provides the following break-down (p. 5):

For clarity, the court does not dispute that the Plaintiffs’ declarations have sufficiently set forth that Defendant Zhang was able to convince the Plaintiffs to undergo various treatment by claiming that she was a medical doctor and that her treatments were FDA approved and that her treatments would solve Plaintiffs’ ailments with 100% guaranteed results; their declarations are sufficient evidence of that.

But evidence of special damages is required.

a.     Special Damages

i.                 Re: DINGZHI CHEN, PEIYU CHEN, and HELEN LIU

Previously, whereas Plaintiffs provided numerous receipts, suggesting that they made payments with a credit card, now Plaintiffs DINGZHI CHEN, PEIYU CHEN, and HELEN LIU declare, under the penalty of perjury, that they made cash payments because they were promised a 10% discount. According to the Rutter Group, the court is required to render default judgment only “for that relief … as appears by the evidence to be just.” [CCP § 585(b)] Therefore, it is up to plaintiff to “prove up” the right to relief, by introducing sufficient evidence to support his or her claim. Without such evidence, the court may refuse to grant a default judgment for any amount, notwithstanding defendant's default. [Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1963) 219 CA2d 559, 560, 33 CR 415, 416; Holloway v. Quetel (2015) 242 CA4th 1425, 1434-1435, 195 CR3d 920, 927-928—trial court did not err in refusing to enter default judgment for pro per plaintiff who failed to submit appropriate supporting documentation, but court failed to give “neutral (and accurate) guidance” about requirements for entry of default judgment].

Here, as Plaintiffs have failed, despite the opportunity, to provide evidence of payments and now claim there is no tangible evidence of such payments, the court DENIES the award of any special damages as to Plaintiffs DINGZHI CHEN, PEIYU CHEN, and HELEN LIU.

ii.               Re: Yiming Chen and Yan Yan

To the extent that Plaintiffs may argue Plaintiffs Yiming Chen and Yan Yan should recover because they have provided receipts, as previously noted by the court, those receipts do not clearly substantiate the payments made. For example, Yiming Chen’s declaration states that she paid for “registration fees and medication, acupuncture, and moxibustion for the treatment” and cites to Exhibit 2. (Chen Decl., p. 2:11-12.) Exhibit 2, however, is 40 plus pages and it is still unclear as to what payment was for what (e.g., what was the 10/09/18 payment for $100.00 for; what was the 10/09/18 payment for $30 for; what was the 10/22/18 $30 payment for). Moreover, the declarations are again silent as to the exact number of treatments and on what dates, which suggests the irrelevancy of the attached receipts. For example, a receipt labeled for “Tx” (presumably treatment) is dated to 10/16/18 and the last receipt in the amount of $2,461.00 (presumably for a treatment) is dated to 4/08/19; but it unclear if Yiming’s treatments even lasted that long.

Thus, as to Yiming Chen and Yan Yan, the court will deny the application WITHOUT prejudice, but only afford one more opportunity to provide the receipts.  

b.     General damages

As for general damages, the court determines that the declarations for general damages are again insufficient.

“The only person whose pain and suffering is relevant in calculating a general damage award is the plaintiff... How others would feel if placed in the plaintiff's position is irrelevant… No amount of expert testimony on the value of life could possibly help a jury decide that difficult question. (Loth v. Truck-A-Way Corp. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 757, 764-64, emphasis added.)

Here, however, Plaintiffs merely recite the treatments they received. For example, Plaintiffs state that Defendant “touched [their] bod[ies],” suggesting that any application or pressure by Defendant in the process of treatments automatically substantiates $50,000 in general damages. But Plaintiffs have not meaningfully explained the effects of those treatments (e.g., specifics of drastic life changes as a result of the treatments).

Thus, as there is no mathematical formula to determine pain and suffering and Plaintiffs have otherwise offered no specifics to support their general damages, the application is denied without prejudice as to general damages. Plaintiffs are afforded one more opportunity to cure the defect.

Conclusion

All in all, Plaintiffs have again failed to demonstrate with sufficient, admissible evidence that they are entitled to the damages that they seek.

Based on the foregoing, the court denies the application without prejudice as for general damages (providing one more attempt). As for special damages, the court denies the award with prejudice because Plaintiffs DINGZHI CHEN, PEIYU CHEN, and HELEN LIU have been afforded previous opportunities to cure the defects with their application, but continue to provide insufficient evidence, suggesting the evidence does not exist. The application is denied without prejudice as to special damages for Yiming Chen and Yan Yan.