Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV00916, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 23AHCV00916    Hearing Date: March 7, 2024    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

IVY ZIHAN GENG, an individual,

 

                                            Plaintiff,

vs.

 

WANSONG HOU, a.k.a. ELLA WANSONG HOU, a.k.a. ELLA TSAI, a.k.a. ELLA WANSONG TSAI, an individual; and DOES 1-25,

 

                                            Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 23AHCV00916

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

 

Date:   March 7, 2024

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

         

          I.        INTRODUCTION

          In this defamation action, Plaintiff Ivy Zihan Geng (Geng) alleges that Defendant Wansong Hou aka Ella Wansong Hou aka Ella Tsai (Tsai) started spreading damaging rumors about Geng’s sex life. Around June and July of 2022, Geng alleges that Hou published these rumors by phone and through WeChat to Geng’s family, friends and friends’ companies in China. She alleges she suffered injuries to her personal reputation and business as a result of these statements. The Complaint contains causes of action for: (1) libel per se, (2) slander per se, (3) false light, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) injunctive relief and (6) declaratory relief.

          Before the Court is Defendant Ella Tsai’s motion to dismiss, filed January 29, 2024. Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 23, 2024.

          Defendant urges that the case against her should be dismissed, as the statements on which this action was founded were allegedly not made in LA County. However, as Defendant has already made a general appearance in the case, she has consented to the jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, her motion to dismiss is DENIED.

 

II.       DISCUSSION

          On January 29, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to dismiss using a judicial council form. (1/29/24 Motion to Dismiss.) Defendant, who is apparently a resident of San Bernadino County, states that the defamatory statements alleged in the Complaint were not made in Los Angeles County.  On page 2 of the form, Defendant checked the boxes to indicate that dismissal is required under Code of Civil Procedure sections 393 and 395. (Motion p. 2.)

Section 393 applies to actions for the recovery of a penalty or forfeiture imposed by statute and actions against a public officer or person especially appointed to execute the duties of a public officer. (CCP § 393.) It does not apply here.

Section 395, subdivision (a) does provide that “the superior court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action.”  (CCP § 395(a).) However, under Code of Civil Procedure section 396b, subdivision (a), if an action is filed in a court other than the court designated as the proper court, the defendant seeking transfer to a proper court must file a motion at the time she answers, demurs, or moves to strike. (CCP § 396b(a).)

On June 5, 2023, Defendant filed a general denial. Defendant did not move to transfer or dismiss this action at that time. On November 22, 2023, Defendant filed a Case Management Statement and requested a jury trial. Trial was then set in this case. Defendant then appeared at the hearing on December 11, 2023 on Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery. A defendant makes a general appearance by participating in an action “in some manner which recognizes the authority of the court to proceed.”  (Mt. Holyoke Homes, LP v. California Costal Com. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 830, 844.) 

Defendant made a general appearance by filing the answer and Case Management Statement, as well as appearing at the hearing on discovery, and thus has consented to this Court’s jurisdiction. (See Opposition p. 3: 17-21.)

Therefore, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

 

III.     CONCLUSION

          Motion to dismiss is DENIED.

          Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to give notice.

 

 

         

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT