Judge Thomas Falls, Case 20STCV08390 2023-03-15 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.

Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment is DENIED WITH prejudice. Counsel and his client are expected to explain what appears to be fraud upon this court.

This action arises from Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants MICHELLE KIM; JOSEPH DINGLASAN, M.D MEEIN MEDICAL CORPORATION dba EBEN EZER MEDICAL CLINIC caused permanent scarring and disfigurement as a result of Defendants’ improper medical treatment.

There are numerous problems with this application, including but not limited to, the failure to file a proper CIV-100 form and a proposed order indicating the amount of judgment sought.[1]

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.

Thus, as is, the application not only fails for its failure to comply with default judgment requirements, but what appears to be fraud upon this court.

[1] But based upon the submitted declaration, Plaintiff Hong appears to seek $900,000 against Michelle Kim.

[2] The latter action was filed by Michelle Kim against Jin Hong on 6/25/2019 for 1. CIVIL EXTORTION 2. FRAUD BY EXTORTION 3. CRIMINAL EXTORTION 4. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 5. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 6. ABUSE OF PROCESS 7. DEFAMATION 8. BREACH OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 9. NEGLIGENCE and 10. INVASION OF PRIVACY. There was a judgment in favor of Defendant after the court sustained Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike (both of which were unopposed by Michelle Kim). The former case was filed on 1/21/2020 by Michelle Kim against Guifeng Zhang and Kenneth Gross (Kenneth Gross was Jin Hong’s attorney in the 19PSCV00577 case).

[3] See California Rules of Court Rule 3.300.