Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV01089, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV01089    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      April 8, 2024                                       TRIAL DATE: July 16, 2024

CASE:                         JACKIE CHEN, an individual, v. SUNNY HOA, an individual, and VAN HOAN WONG, an individual, and DOES 1 to 100.  

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV01089

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Jackie Chen

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendants Sunny Hoa and Van Hoang Wong

SERVICE:                              Filed March 14, 2024

OPPOSITION:                       Filed March 24, 2024

REPLY:                                   No reply filed.  

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff moves for an order permitting discovery into Defendants’ financial condition related to his claim for punitive damages.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Jackie Chen’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that he was assaulted by Defendants Sunny Hoa and Van Hoang Wong on August 26, 2020. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on February 8, 2023, alleging four causes of action for (1) battery, (2) assault, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (4) fraudulent conveyance of real property.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion for an order allowing discovery into the financial condition of Defendants Sunny Hoa and Van Hoan Wong is GRANTED and DENIED to all other persons.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves for an order permitting discovery into Defendants’ financial condition related to his claim for punitive damages.

            “No pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be permitted with respect to the evidence referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) unless the court enters an order permitting such discovery pursuant to this subdivision. . . . Upon motion by the plaintiff supported by appropriate affidavits and after a hearing, if the court deems a hearing to be necessary, the court may at any time enter an order permitting the discovery otherwise prohibited by this subdivision if the court finds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294.” (Civ. Code § 3295, subd. (c).)

            “[W]e interpret the words ‘substantial probability’ to mean ‘very likely’ or ‘a strong likelihood’ just as their plain meaning suggests.” (Jabro v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 754, 758.)

            In support of his motion, Plaintiff argues that he has established a substantial probability of prevailing on his battery claim and his fraudulence conveyance claim. However, in support of his fraudulent conveyance claim, Plaintiff merely provides the grant deed and provides “on information and belief” that Defendant continues to live at the residence. (Chen Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff has failed to establish a substantial probability of prevailing on his fraudulent conveyance claim. The next issue is whether Plaintiff has established a substantial probability of prevailing on his battery claim.

            “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” (Civ. Code § 3295, subd. (a).) “ ‘Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a).)

            Plaintiff provides that on August 26, 2020, Defendants physically attacked him with their fists and a bucket. (Chen Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff provides he was left injured and suffered permanent hearing loss. (Id. ¶ 3.) Further, in their responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions, Defendants separately admitted that they “commit[ed] an assault upon Jackie Chen” on August 26, 2020. (Exhibits B and C.) Plaintiff has demonstrated that there is a substantial probability he will prevail on his claim for punitive damages based on malice.

            Plaintiff’s motion for an order allowing discovery into the financial condition of Defendants Sunny Hoa and Van Hoan Wong is granted.

            Defendants provide they are “presumptively” entitled to a protective order. However, the case Defendants cite provides in full: “[W]here a party is compelled in civil discovery to reveal financial information because the information is relevant to the subject matter of a claim for punitive damages, that party is, upon his motion, presumptively entitled to a protective order that the information need be revealed only to counsel for the discovering party or to counsel's representative, and that once so revealed, the information may be used only for the purposes of the lawsuit.” (Richards v. Superior Court (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 265, 273.) Defendants have not filed a motion for a protective order.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for an order allowing discovery into the financial condition of Defendants Sunny Hoa and Van Hoan Wong is GRANTED and DENIED to all other persons.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   April 8, 2024                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org