Eun Jung Lim
17192 Murphy Avenue #17723
Irvine, California [92623]
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
MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE, &
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION
COMES NOW, Plaintiff EUN JUNG LIM, pro se, and files this Motion to Recuse the
Judge, pursuant to CCP §170.6(a). In support of this Motion, Plaintiff states as follows:
LEGAL ARGUMEMENTS
1. Plaintiff was denied her right to a Court Reporter
An official court reporter, or other valid means to create an official verbatim record for
purposes of appeal, must generally be made available to in forma pauperis litigants upon request.
See Jameson v. Desta, 5 Cal.5th 594 (Cal. 2018). In Jameson v. Desta, the Supreme Court of
California held that as applied to in forma pauperis litigants who are entitled to a waiver of
official court reporter fees, the San Diego Superior Court’s general policy of not providing
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 TO RECUSE JUDGE & DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF
official court reporters in most civil trials while permitting privately retained court reporters for
parties who can afford to pay for such reporters was invalid.
Further, according to California Rules of Court rule 2.956(b)(3), a party who has received
a fee waiver pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 3.55 may request an official court
reporter at least 10 calendar days prior to a trial or evidentiary hearing by submitting mandatory
court form L-0790. Rule 2.956(b)(3) provides in pertinent part that:
Unless the court’s policy states that all courtrooms normally have the services
of official court reporters available for civil trials, the court must require that
each party file a statement before the trial date indicating whether the party
requests the presence of an official court reporter. If a party requests the
presence of an official court reporter and it appears that none will be available,
the clerk must notify the party of that fact as soon as possible before the trial. If
the services of official court reporters are normally available in all courtrooms,
the clerk must notify the parties to a civil trial as soon as possible if it appears
that those services will not be available.
In the instant action, the Plaintiff did not waiver her right to a court reporter. She cannot
afford the price of a court reporter. Accordingly, on or about July 25, 2022, the Plaintiff
requested for a Court Reporter by filing “Request for Court Reporter by Party with Fee Waiver
Filed”, for the Summary Judgment hearing scheduled for August 1, 2022 (Exhibit A- Request
for Court Reporter).. The court had made previous fee waivers in the case such as on February
7, 2022, and January 25, 2022 (Exhibit B- Order granting fee waiver).
At the day of the hearing, the clerk informed Plaintiff that there was no court reporter.
The clerk further told the Plaintiff that on Mondays, the Court usually does not have court
reporters.
Consequently, in a bid to protect her right to a court reporter, the Plaintiff asked for
continuance until such a time when a court reporter would be available. The Judge should have
only moved the hearing to a different date other than Monday, to such a time when a court
reporter would be available. Besides, there would be no reasonable objection from the Defendant
if the hearing would be moved to a date when the court reporter would be available.
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 TO RECUSE JUDGE & DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF
However, the Judge told Plaintiff outrightly that she would not get the court reporter for
free. The Judge further insinuated that Plaintiff would have to pay the Defendant’s attorney fees,
and pay the court reporter’s fees if she continued the case. Plaintiff asserts that the Judge’s
conduct is a denial of her right to have free court reporter since she proceeds in pro per.
The Judge then disregarded Plaintiff’s request for continuance and issued a tentative
ruling on the motion for summary judgment, holding in favor of the Defendant (Exhibit C-
Tentative Ruling). This further amounted to a violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights to fair
hearing because the Judge prevented the Plaintiff from getting an evidentiary hearing on an
official record, which record would have been used for appeal. Besides, the Judge did not even
look at Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment.
2. The Plaintiff was denied her due process rights to a fair hearing.
Freedom from arbitrary adjudicative procedures is a substantive element of one’s liberty.
See People v. Ramirez, 25 Cal.3d 260, 320 (1979). Due process guaranteed under Article I § 7 of
the California Constitution thus, “presumes that when an individual is subject to deprivatory
governmental action, he always has a due process liberty interest both in fair and unprejudiced
decision-making and in being treated with respect and dignity.” Id.
“Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive
individuals of “liberty” or “property” interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.” See Mathew v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 331 (1976).
As already discussed above, the Judge disregarded Plaintiff’s request for continuance and
issued a tentative ruling on the motion for summary judgment, holding in favor of the Defendant.
This further amounted to a violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights to fair hearing because the
Judge prevented the Plaintiff from getting an evidentiary hearing on an official record, which
record would have been used for appeal. Besides, the Judge did not even look at Plaintiff’s
Response to Defendant’s Opposition to the Plaintiff’s 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
4
MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE & DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Further, the Judge knew that a court reporter is not available on Mondays. However, the
Judge refused to schedule the court dates for days other than Mondays.
3. The Judge failed to address Defendant’s violation of applicable law
regarding the time limit to file an answer
According to Rule 3.110(d), responsive pleadings must be filed within thirty (30) days of
the filing of a Complaint, or within a 15-day extension as stipulated by the parties to the case.
In the Judge’s tentative ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Judge
only noted that Plaintiff had prematurely filed the motion (“only 8 days after Defendant Hoag
answered.” However, the Judge did not notice that the Defendant had filed their answer beyond
the statutorily allowed time limit of thirty (30) days. Contrary to the Judge’s statement, the
Motion for Summary Judgment was filed eight days after the Defendant’s untimely answer, and
not eight days after initial services. The parties had not stipulated that the Defendant could file
the responsive pleading any time after the thirty days.
4. The Judge failed to address the Defendant’s frivolous filings
Frivolous" is defined as "totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of
harassing an opposing party." See Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5(b)(2). The "bad faith requirement of
section 128.5 does not impose a determination of evil motive. The concept of ‘harassment’
includes vexatious tactics which, although literally authorized by statute or rule, go beyond that
which is by any standard appropriate under the circumstances." In re Marriage of Sahafzadeh-
Taeb & Taeb (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 124, 145-46 (Taeb).
Further, an objection is frivolous where it can be said that it indisputably has no merit,
such that any reasonable attorney would agree that it is totally and completely without merit.
Corbett v. Hayward Dodge, Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 915, 922.
In the instant action, the Judge failed to address, and thereby appeared to accept,
Defendant’s several frivolous filings. Such frivolous filings include Defendant’s “Notice of
Ruling” (4 pages), filed on 07/05/2022; “Declaration in Support of Opposition” (7 pages) filed
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 TO RECUSE JUDGE & DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF
on 07/18/2022; “Separate Statement” (9 pages) filed on 07/18/2022; “Opposition” (11 pages),
filed on 07/18/2022; “Declaration in Support of Opposition” (7 pages) filed on 07/18/2022;
“Notice of Intent to Introduce Documentary Evidence” (170 pages), filed on 07/18/2022
(Exhibit D- Case Docket).
It is also noteworthy that the Defendant had insufficiently served their opposition to the
motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the first page was missing in the service of the
opposition. The opposition further had a restaple. Plaintiff looked in the UPS envelope and the
first page was taped securely against the inside of the envelope.
5. The Plaintiff was prejudiced when a retired Judge heard the case
According to CCP § 170.6(a)(1), a judge shall not try a case if it is established that the
judge is prejudiced against a party or attorney. The said section 170.6 requires a different judge
to be assigned in lieu of the originally assigned one. See People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 421,
439; accord, Peracchi v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 1248 ("Section 170.6 permits a party in civil
and criminal actions to move to disqualify an assigned trial judge on the basis of a simple
allegation by the party or his or her attorney that the judge is prejudiced against the party.").
Prejudice may be established by the party or attorney “by an oral or written motion
without notice supported by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury or an oral statement
under oath’ that the judge is prejudiced against the party or attorney ‘so that the party or attorney
cannot or believes that he or she cannot have a fair and impartial trial’ before the judge”. See §
170.6, subd. (a)(2); Home Insurance v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 1025, at 1031-1032.
In the instant action, the presiding Judge, Richard Oberholzer stated that his last day as
the presiding judge in the case would be August 1, 2022. However, the Judge went ahead to
preside over the case, and in the course thereof, was biased towards the Defendant’s side. As
already discussed above, the Judge: denied Plaintiff her right to a court reporter, violated
Plaintiff’s due process right to a fair hearing by issuing a tentative ruling before hearing
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s 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
6
MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE & DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF
failed to address the Defendant’s failure to adhere to the 30-day time limit set for responsive
pleadings, and failed to address the Defendant’s frivolous filings.
As such, the Judge’s aforesaid conduct amounts to prejudice against Plaintiff, which
warrants the Judge’s recusal.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eun Jung Lim respectfully requests that the Court grants this
Motion to Recuse Judge Richard Oberholzer as requested herein.
Dated: ________________
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
7
MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE & DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Eun Jung Lim
17192 Murphy Avenue #17723
Irvine, California [92623]
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
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE
I, EUN JUNG LIM, declare that:
1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-titled matter.
2. The Honorable RICHARD OBERHOLZER, Judge to whom the TRIAL of the above-
entitled matter is pending in DEPARTMENT C25, is prejudiced against the
PLAINTIFF.
3. Declarant believes that the PLAINTIFF cannot have a fair and impartial trial or
hearing before this Judge.
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 TO RECUSE JUDGE & DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: ________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
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 TO RECUSE JUDGE & DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF
I hereby certify that on 21 th June 2022, copies of the foregoing document have been
served upon the prosecutor in this case by personal delivery to his or her office at the following
address:
[ENTER DEFENDANTS’ ADDRESSES]
DATED: _______________
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
EUN JUNG LIM
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A- Request for Court Reporter
Exhibit B- Order granting fee waiver
Exhibit C- Tentative Ruling
Exhibit D- Case Docket
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 )