Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 20STCV08390, Date: 2024-01-17 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: 20STCV08390    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

The court requests that Plaintiff file one proposed order (JUD-100).

Additionally, the court requests that Plaintiff provide courtesy copies of the default judgment material, which is to be provided at least 16 court days before the next hearing date.

Background

This is a negligence case. Plaintiff Jin Hong alleges the following against Defendants MICHELLE KIM (“Kim”); JOSEPH DINGLASAN, M.D MEEIN MEDICAL CORPORATION dba EBEN EZER MEDICAL CLINIC (“Clinic”) and Doe Defendants[1]: In July 2018, Kim performed a laser treatment on Plaintiff’s face that caused permanent scarring and disfigurement. Plaintiff later learned that, despite representations, Kim was unlicensed and unqualified to perform the treatment.

On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed suit alleging the following COAs:

On July 13, 2020, Kim filed a demurrer and a cross complaint against Plaintiff and Douglas Borthwick alleging, inter alia, COAs for civil extortion and breach of settlement agreement.

On July 27, 2020, default was entered against Dr. Dinglasan.

On February 22, 2021, the court adopted its tentative ruling on Kim’s demurrer, which to take the demurrer off calendar due to numerous unsuccessful attempts at contacting Kim to reschedule the demurrer. (No appearances by Defendant(s) at the hearing.) The court also set two OSCs: “Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service as to Defendant Meein Medical Corporation is scheduled for 04/13/21 at 08:30 AM in Department J at Pomona Courthouse South. Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions for Defendant, Michelle Kim's, Failure to Appear is scheduled for 04/13/21 at 08:30 AM in Department J at Pomona Courthouse South.”

On April 13, 2021, the court issued, in relevant part, the following minute order: “There is no appearance by defendant this date. The Order to Show Cause for plaintiff's failure to serve defendant Meein Medical Corporation is held and discharged. Defendant has been served. On the Court's own motion, the Case Management Conference scheduled for 04/13/2021, and Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions for Defendant, Michelle Kim's, Failure to Appear scheduled for 04/13/2021 are continued to 06/04/21 at 08:30 AM in Department J at Pomona Courthouse South. The Order to Show Cause is continued for possible terminating sanctions, including plaintiff's request to strike defendant's demurrer.”

On April 29, 2021, default was entered against the Clinic.

On June 4, 2021, the court in its minute order stated the following: “Defendant Michelle Kim failed to appear for the third time. Case Management Conference is held. Plaintiff may proceed by way of Default Judgement.”

On June 7, 2021, default was entered against Kim.

On November 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney indicating that he was no longer pro per and that Douglas Borthwick would be his attorney.

On November 17, 2021, the court, on its own, filed an order of dismissal indicating that “the within action is dismissed without prejudice as to Douglas Macmillan Borthwick, et al.”[2] The minute order states the following: “The Court and counsel confer in regards to the non-jury trial. The Court takes the non-jury trial off calendar. Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment is scheduled for 05/05/22 at 08:30 AM in Department R at Pomona Courthouse South. There being no appearance by defendants. The Court orders Douglas Macmillan Borthwick and Jin Hong in Cross-Complaint filed by Michelle Kim on 07/13/2020 dismissed without prejudice.”

On May 12, 2022, according to the minute order Regarding the OSC re: Default Judgment, no parties appeared such that the court set two OSCs: Order to Show Cause Re: Plaintiff and Defendant's Failure to Appear on 5/12/2022 is scheduled for 08/17/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department R at Pomona Courthouse South. Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute Case.

On March 15, 2023, the court adopted its tentative ruling regarding the default judgment as final. The tentative ruling denied the default judgment for the following main reason:

However, those defects aside, there is a more significant reason why the matter is denied with prejudice: there appear to be a total of three related cases (the instant case, Case 20PSCV00055 and 19PSCV00577).[2] Moreover, not only did Plaintiff not notify the court of the related cases (which it must have done),[3] but the failure to do so may be an attempt to circumvent claim or issue preclusion defenses, which may altogether have been grounds to dismiss this instant action with prejudice. Furthermore, Plaintiff appears to have changed his name from Guifeng Zhang (see Case 20PSCV00055) to Jin Hong, perhaps again attempt to circumvent any defenses. 

On March 24, 2023, the court issued the following in its minute order: “The Court admonishes Counsel to address the issues detailed in the above indicated ruling on the next court date. Pursuant to the request of plaintiff, the Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment scheduled for 05/24/2023 is continued to 08/25/2023 at 09:00 AM in Department O at Pomona Courthouse South.”

On August 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed two notices of related cases.

On August 29, 2023, the court denied the notice of related case(s) as both 19PSCV00577 and 20STCV08390 were dismissed.

On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed his default judgment application material.

On November 30, 2023, the court continued the default judgment hearing as Plaintiff filed the material but one day before the hearing. 

On January 17, 2024, the court denied Plaintiff’s default judgment application.

On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff refiled its application material.

Discussion

Previously, the court denied the application because “Plaintiff has not provided a JUD-100 form indicating who Plaintiff seeks default judgment against and for what amount.”

Now, while Plaintiff has provided a JUD-100, there are multiple and are different. For example, one seeks $900,000 against Defendants Kim, Dr. Dinglasan, and the clinic, but anther seeks the same damages but with an additional $50,000 for attorney fees. The exact amount sought is further blurred as the CIV-100 form does not seek attorney fees.[3]

The court requests that Plaintiff file one proposed order to clarify the issue.

Additionally, the court requests that Plaintiff provide courtesy copies of the default judgment material, which is to be provided at least 16 court days before the next hearing date.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application is denied without prejudice.