1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 1
MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Eun Jung Lim
17192 Murphy Avenue #17723
Irvine, California [92623]
invokemyright@protonmail.com
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
EUN JUNG LIM,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
PRESBYTERIAN; and HERBERT
CONRAD, in his official and individual
capacity,
Defendants.
Case No.: 30-2022-01242187-CU-PO-CJC
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION;
AND MOTION FOR STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE
HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Judge: Linda S. Marks
Department: C25
Date/Time: 09/12/2022 10:00AM
NOTICE OF MOTION
To ALL Defendants and to their Attorneys of Record and Honorable Linda S. Marks:
Please TAKE NOTICE that on [ENTER DATE] at [ENTER TIME] or soon thereafter,
the Plaintiff herein will move this Court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 404.5 and
Rules of Court, Rule 3.515, in Department C25 for an order granting a stay of proceedings
pending the hearing and determination of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on August 1,
2022.
This motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 404.5 and Rules of
Court, Rule 3.515 on the ground that the Defendants’ answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2
MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
raised no valid defense and/or response to Plaintiff’s claims, contained errors in fact and law, and
was frivolously crafted to mislead the court. Accordingly, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment, which needs to be heard and determined first.
Further, the motion will be based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum set forth
below, and the Declaration of the Plaintiff as to the veracity of the facts alleged, on the records
and file herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.
Dated: 25 th May 2022
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
EUN JUNG LIM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 3
MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, EUN JUNG LIM, pro se, and files this Motion for Stay of
Proceedings Pending the Hearing and Determination of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 404.5 and Rules of Court, Rule 3.515. In
support of this Motion, Plaintiff states as follows:
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
QUASH THE SUPOENA SEEKING PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The incidence giving rise to this action began when Plaintiff’s mother had been admitted
at the First Defendant’s facility. On January 25, 2020, Plaintiff went to visit her mother. As
Plaintiff was checking in at the ER at the First Defendant’s facility, the Second Defendant stole
Plaintiff’s phone from the ER lobby and pushed the Plaintiff until Plaintiff fell.
Consequently, the police officers arrived and took a police report of the incidence.
Interestingly, the Second Defendant gave false information that Plaintiff was the one who
punched his face. Accordingly, Plaintiff was charged and a case was filed against her. During the
pendency of the said case, the Irvine Police Department refused to give Plaintiff a copy of the
Police Report. It was only when the case was dismissed when the Irvine Police Department gave
the Plaintiff the Report.
The said case was dismissed on May 2021. After the dismissal of the case, the Plaintiff
got the Report. It is also worth noting that during the trial of the said case, the detective, the
attorneys of the hospital, and the head of security personnel at the hospital looked at the hospital
camera footage that recorded the events of January 25, 2020. The Plaintiff tried to subpoena the
hospital for the said footage. However, Plaintiff used the wrong Subpoena. Accordingly, the
hospital’s attorney filed a Motion to quash the said Subpoena on the ground that it violated
HIPPA laws. On or about December 2020, the Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Quash
the Subpoena. The Plaintiff therefore never got an opportunity to present pertinent evidence of
what really happened on the incident.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 4
MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s mother died during the pendency of the case against Plaintiff.
Further, Plaintiff has been subjected to emotional harm and distress pursuant to the malicious
prosecution and the acts and/or inactions of the Defendants.
On or about September 23, 2021, the Plaintiff conducted a Public Records request. After
the said request, the Plaintiff realized that Michele Hinig, a former detective working on
Plaintiff’s case, maliciously made a declaration and warrant for the Plaintiff’s arrest by filing a
false police report. The said declaration warrant for Plaintiff’s arrest contained notable
irregularities and deficiencies.
Plaintiff filed an action against the Defendants on or about January 25, 2022. In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were blameworthy for negligence, malicious
prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On or about March 8, 2022, Defendant Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian filed an
Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. In the Answer, Defendant denied the allegations in Plaintiff’s
Complaint. The Defendant also raised Affirmative Defenses to each of Plaintiff’s cause of
action. Plaintiff therefore filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
On April 15, 2022, the Defendant filed a Notice to Plaintiff seeking records for
examination on May 23, 2022. The Defendant also sent a Subpoena specifying the documents
that Plaintiff needed to produce including records from April 1, 2015 to date; all photographs of
Herbert Conrad and Plaintiff.
Plaintiff therefore files this Motion to Stay all proceedings pending the Court’s
determination of the Motion for Summary Judgment.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 5
MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ARGUMENTS
I. Plaintiff’s request for a stay of proceedings should be granted in the interest
of justice
Trial courts generally have the inherent power to grant a stay of proceedings in the
interest of justice and to promote judicial efficiency. See Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995)
33 Cal. App. 4 th 1484, 1489.
In the instant action, the Plaintiff asserts that it would be in the interest of justice for the
court to grant the stay of proceedings until August 1, 2022 when the Court shall hear and
determine Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff specifically avers that the
Defendants improperly answered the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, which necessitated
Plaintiff to file the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendants’ answer also contains
subterfuge and false statements that evade the issues that were raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint,
and appear to mislead the court. The Defendants failed to grant Plaintiff access to the video
footage, which was recorded by the hospital camera. The Defendants also failed to produce the
said footage as evidence. The Defendants alleged that the use of the footage would violate the
rights of other patients under HIPPA. On the contrary, Plaintiff avers that no rights would be
infringed if the footage is admitted as evidence because the evidence is exculpatory and without
it, Plaintiff’s due process rights are limited. Plaintiff has a copy of a letter stating that the footage
clearly demonstrates the events that took place on January 25, 2020. Therefore, the footage
should be reviewed and preserved for judgment. In that regard, Plaintiff seeks to introduce three
new pieces of evidence listed below:
i. Plaintiff’s letter to the DA Harbor Justice Center to view the hospital surveillance
footage, which is exculpatory evidence.
ii. Plaintiff’s letter to the DA Todd Spitzer, having not received any response from
the Harbor Justice Deputy DA, requesting to inspect the hospital footage.
iii. Civil subpoena from the judge, to get the hospital surveillance footage.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 6
MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff further avers that the admission of the footage into evidence would help Plaintiff
identify possible witnesses of the incidence, who would testify in support of Plaintiff’s case.
Plaintiff therefore asserts that failure to allow access to the footage or to present the footage as
evidence violates Plaintiff’s due process rights to a fair hearing. Notably, Plaintiff avers that the
contents of the footage do not amount to “protected health information”, which is subject to
protection under the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information issued
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. See 45 C.F.R. § 160.103. According to
the said law, protected health information includes the individual’s past, present or future
physical or mental health or condition, the provision of health care to the individual, or the past,
present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual. Id. The video
footage was of the entrance to the health facility. The contents therefore do not amount to
protected health information under the said law.
Plaintiff avers that if the court finds that the content of the footage amount to protected
health information, the law provides for the disclosure of such information for judicial and
administrative proceedings. Notably, covered entities may disclose protected health information
in a judicial or administrative proceeding if the request for the information is through an order
from a court or administrative tribunal. Such information may also be disclosed in response to a
subpoena or other lawful process if certain assurances regarding notice to the individual or a
protective order are provided. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e).
Plaintiff therefore maintains that she has valid claims against the Defendants. Plaintiff
states as follows:
i. She was illegally detained.
ii. She was assaulted and robbed of her telephone thus making it impossible for her
to call a higher authority or her attorney.
iii. The confiscation of her cell phone made it impossible for her to record the
felonious acts against her. However, the felonious acts against her were recorded
on the hospital video.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 7
MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
iv. The Defendants denied Plaintiff access to the footage even though the said
footage was subpoenaed.
v. The Defendants brought false charges against Plaintiff.
vi. The evidence from the footage was not presented to Court.
According to Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 2, § 59.4(a)(8) & (2), failure to meet and confer for an
informal resolution of a discovery dispute, or employing a discovery method in a manner or to an
extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and
expense, is sanctionable as an abuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff further avers that the
Defendant’s Notice to Plaintiff seeking records for examination, and Defendant’s Subpoena were
filed in a bid to cause confusion in the case. The Defendants were fully aware that Plaintiff had
already filed the Motion for Summary Judgment, which was pending hearing. Besides, the
parties had not begun the discovery process. Plaintiff had not filed form L-964. For that reason,
the Defendant’s filings were frivolous and were an abuse of process.
Plaintiff therefore asserts that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the stay of the
proceedings until the court decides the motion for summary judgment.
II. The Defendants will not be irreparably injured by the stay
A stay of proceedings shall be granted when the court finds that the moving party will
suffer extreme hardship in the absence of a stay and that the non-moving party will not be
irreparably injured by its issuance. See Mehr v. Superior Court (1983) 139 Cal. App. 3d 1044,
1050.
Plaintiff avers that he is subject to harm if the stay is not granted. Further, the Defendants
will not suffer any harm or loss if the stay is granted.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above, Plaintiff EUN JUNG LIM respectfully requests that the Court grant
this Motion to Stay the Proceedings Pending the Hearing and Determination of the Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff also prays this court issue sanctions against the
Defendant for abuse of the discovery process, and for making frivolous filings in this Court.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 8
MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on 25 th May 2022, copies of the foregoing document have been sent
by Fedex Next Day to the Defendant in the following address:
CARROLL, KELLY, TROTTER & FRANZEN
MICHAEL J. TROTTER (SBN 139034)
JO LYNN VALOFF (SBN 177081)
111 West Ocean Boulevard, 14th Floor
Post Office Box 22636
Long Beach, California 90801-5636
Telephone No. (562) 432-5855 / Facsimile No. (562) 432-8785
mjtrotter@cktflaw.com / jlvaloff@cktflaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
DATED: 25 th March 2022
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
EUN JUNG LIM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 9
MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Eun Jung Lim
17192 Murphy Avenue #17723
Irvine, California [92623]
invokemyright@protonmail.com
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
EUN JUNG LIM,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
PRESBYTERIAN; and HERBERT
CONRAD, in his official and individual
capacity,
Defendants.
Case No.: 30-2022-01242187-CU-PO-CJC
PLAINTIFF’S DECLARATION IN
SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR STAY
OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE
HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Judge: Linda S. Marks
Department: C25
Date/Time: 09/12/2022 10:00AM
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
PENDING THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO the Hon. Judge Linda S. Marks, and the Honorable Court,
Plaintiff EUN JUNG LIM being duly sworn, depose and state as follows:
i. Plaintiff was illegally detained.
ii. Plaintiff was assaulted and robbed of her telephone thus making it impossible for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 10
MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
her to call a higher authority or her attorney.
iii. The confiscation of her cell phone made it impossible for her to record the
felonious acts against her. However, the felonious acts against her were recorded
on the hospital video.
iv. The Defendants brought false charges against Plaintiff. The case was dismissed
on May 2021.
vii. The Plaintiff filed an action against the Defendants on or about January 25, 2022.
viii. On or about March 8, 2022, Defendant Hoag Memorial Hospital
Presbyterian filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
ix. The Defendants denied Plaintiff access to the footage even though the said
footage was subpoenaed.
x. The evidence from the footage was not presented to Court.
xi. Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
xii. On April 15, 2022, the Defendant filed a Notice to Plaintiff seeking records for
examination on May 23, 2022.
xiii. The Motion for Summary Judgment should be heard and determined
before any other proceeding, in the interest of justice.
Dated: ________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 11
MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on 25 th May 2022, copies of the foregoing document have been sent
by Fedex Next Day to the Defendant in the following address:
CARROLL, KELLY, TROTTER & FRANZEN
MICHAEL J. TROTTER (SBN 139034)
JO LYNN VALOFF (SBN 177081)
111 West Ocean Boulevard, 14th Floor
Post Office Box 22636
Long Beach, California 90801-5636
Telephone No. (562) 432-5855 / Facsimile No. (562) 432-8785
mjtrotter@cktflaw.com / jlvaloff@cktflaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
DATED: 25 h March 2022
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
EUN JUNG LIM
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1- Plaintiff’s letter to the Harbor Justice Center requesting a prosecutor to view the hospital
surveillance footage which is exculpatory evidence
Exhibit 2- Plaintiff’s letter to Orange County District Attorney, Todd Spitzer, showing lack of a
response from the Harbor Justice Deputy DA to Plaintiff’s request to inspect the hospital footage
Exhibit 3- Civil subpoena for getting the hospital surveillance footage, which the judge granted
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )