Eun Jung Lim
17192 Murphy Avenue #17723
Irvine, California [92623]
949-229-0302
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

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Judge: Linda S. Marks
Department: C25
Time/Date: August 1, 2022 10 AM

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, EUN JUNG LIM, pro se, and files this Response to
Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In support of this
Response, Plaintiff states as follows:

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On or about January 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed an action against the Defendants. In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were blameworthy for negligence, malicious
prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Summons was also served on the
Defendant on February 2, 2022. The Defendant had 30 days to respond according to the law.
On or about March 8, 2022, Defendant Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian filed an

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

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
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 files this Motion for Summary Judgment. It is worth noting that
Defendant filed an incorrect proof of service by email. Specifically, Plaintiff’s email is incorrect
in the said proof of service.
On March 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against the
Defendants. In the said motion, Plaintiff alleged inter alia, that there is no issue of material fact;
there is no merit to the Defendants’ affirmative defenses as to all causes of action in Plaintiff’s
Complaint; and the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
On July 18, 2022, Defendant Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (hereinafter “Hoag”)
filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and a declaration thereof. In
the response, the Defendant alleged that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is premature;
and that Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally deficient: Plaintiff fails to meet her burden of
evidence; there is no separate statement of facts; and that there exists triable issues of material
facts.
Plaintiff hereby files this response.

ARGUMENTS

A. Plaintiff’s Motion is not premature; and is procedurally sound
After decades of viewing summary judgment skeptically, the California Supreme Court
has recently held that summary judgment is no longer a disfavored remedy. See Perry v.
Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC (2017) 2 Cal.5th 536, 542. A party may move for a motion for
Summary Judgment if there is no defense to the action or proceeding. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §
437c(a)(1).
In the instant action, Defendant avers that Plaintiff’s Motion is premature since discovery
process has not been done and Defendant Herbert Conrad has not had an opportunity to defend
himself. Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, there is good cause to grant Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment. First, the Defendant filed the Answer past the 30- day time period provide

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

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
in Rule 3.110 of the California Rules of Civil practice. The parties had not stipulated to any
extension of the 30-day period. Further, when Defendant filed their Answer past the 30-day
period, they provided no explanation as to their failure to honor the statutory timeline set. This
amounts to a blatant disregard of the law, which contempt this Court should not let pass.
Therefore, from the onset, Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against the Defendant. Exhibit A
Affidavit for a fee schedule filed which defendant’s attorneys opposed but facts remain true
in support of the Plaintiff’s summary judgement.
Apart from filing a late answer, the Defendant’s answer was irrelevant. The answer only
consisted of “boilerplate” affirmative defenses which fail to state facts sufficient to constitute
affirmative defenses.
The Defendant and Defendant’s attorney lack personal knowledge of the events that
occurred on January 25 th . According to Cal. Evid. Code § 702, “the testimony of a witness
concerning a particular matter is inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter.”
Jo Lynn Valoff (the Defendant’s attorney) and Scott Runnel (the hospital’s IT professional)
declared that they saw the video of the January 25 th incidence, not in the original format. Plaintiff
notes that the said individuals would not preserve the video evidencing to prove their allegations
of assault and battery to use against Plaintiff. Further, Irvine Police detective Michele Hinig
under penalty of perjury declared she saw Plaintiff punching and kicking and swinging in
hospital video. Yet, no video has been presented to prove their assertions. The Plaintiff is
concerned that the hospital may destroy the evidence. Plaintiff further assets that the Defendant’s
conduct(s) amounts to conversion, aiding and abetting, fraud and working in conjunction with
law enforcement. Jo Lynn Valoff declared she saw the video on testifying on HIPPA side. For
the aforesaid reasons, the Defendant does not have personal knowledge of the facts as alleged.
Plaintiff tried to subpoena the hospital footage which Subpoena was quashed. Attorney Jo
Lynn Valoff and Scott Rundel (the IT guy), declared they saw the video not in its original
format. There is no mention confirming false accusations of kicking punching a guard from an
Asian female 4’ 11”. Plaintiff believes the hospital made a spoilation of the video evidence.

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

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Also, there is no account or declaration of actual hospital staff, Adrian who was at the front desk
checked Plaintiff in, and the second guard who was with Conrad and Plaintiff.
Next, Plaintiff is entitled to Summary Judgment because of the conduct of the Defendants
in this action. Up until this time, Plaintiff has been unable to find Defendant Herbert Conrad.
Notably, Herbert Conrad is hiding to avoid facing justice, to Plaintiff’s detriment.
B. Because Defendant filed their Answer past the allowed time, Plaintiff is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law
Summary judgment is properly granted when the moving party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. Starzynski v. Capital Public Radio, Inc., 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 37 citing Code
Civ. Proc., § 437(c). Besides, summary judgments are well designed to unburden trial calendars.
By demanding audience, Defendant wants to benefit from their negligence and/or
inadvertence. It is worth noting that neither inadvertence nor neglect will warrant judicial relief
unless it may reasonably be classified as of the excusable variety upon a sufficient showing.
Elms v. Elms (1946) 72 Cal.App.2d 508, 513.
As argued above, contrary to the Defendant’s assertions, Plaintiff is entitled to the motion
for summary judgment since Defendant, without good cause, failed to follow the requirement to
make a responsive pleading within 30 days of receipt of Plaintiff’s Summons and Complaint.
The Defendant also argues that the motion for summary judgment should not be granted
because Defendant Herbert Conrad has not yet been served. On the contrary, Plaintiff asserts that
Herbert is deliberately hiding from being served. Plaintiff has filed an order for service by
publication, which she filed on Friday, Jul 29, 2022. Further, Plaintiff will be filing a motion for
sanctions against the attorneys and Conrad.
C. Plaintiff’s motion meets her burden of evidence
While a party is precluded by section 437c from using his own pleadings as an affidavit,
he may rely on those of his adversary to establish necessary facts. See Joslin v. Mann Municipal
Water Dist., 67 Cal. 2d 132, 148, 429 P.2d 889, 900, 60 Cal. Rptr. 377, 388 (1967).

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

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Cal. Evid. Code § 702 provides that “the testimony of a witness concerning a particular
matter is inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter.”
In Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff made reference to the facts alleged
in the Defendant’s answer. The answer filed by defendant consists of nothing but “boilerplate”
affirmative defenses which fail to state facts sufficient to constitute affirmative defenses. In
which (Plaintiff will be filing a Motion to strike the Answer. Should I add this what Im
planning to do or wait after the SJM tomorrow)
The Defendant has also failed to meet the evidentiary burden sufficient to oppose a
motion for summary judgment. In the Defendant’s declaration, they aver that they have personal
knowledge of the facts in this Complaint. During the criminal case against Plaintiff, Plaintiff
tried to subpoena the hospital footage which Subpoena was quashed. Attorney Jo Lynn Valoff
and Scott Rundel (the IT guy), declared they saw the video not in its original format, and allege
that disclosing the video to Plaintiff amounts to a violation of HIPPA since the footage shows
faces of the hospital visitors. Therefore, Defendant lies in their Declaration, when they state that
they have personal knowledge of the facts as alleged. Essentially, as it stands, Defendant has
absolutely no source of the true facts of the events of January 25 th . The Defendant has not met the
evidentiary burden to oppose Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Where there are no
"genuine issues of material fact" for the court to decide, summary judgment is proper to conserve
valuable judicial energies and spare litigants unnecessary costs and further delays.
D. There are no material issues of fact that need to be decided by the court in this
cause.
Summary judgment is granted when no triable issue exists as to any material fact. See
Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c). There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the
evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party
opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof. See Aguilar v. Atlantic
Richfield Company (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (S086738; filed June 14, 2001).
In Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, 2 Cal.5th at p. 542, the Supreme Court emphasized that
“[s]ummary judgment is … ‘a particularly suitable means to test the sufficiency’ of the plaintiff’s
or defendant’s case.”

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

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Here, the Defendant tried to use dilatory tactics by raising disputed but immaterial issues
to confuse the court. Although the Defendant raises the immaterial issues, none is a "genuine
issue of material fact". Accordingly, none of the remaining disputed issues of fact can affect the
outcome of this cause.
Besides, as already discussed above, the Defendant has also failed to meet the evidentiary
burden sufficient to oppose a motion for summary judgment.
CONCLUSION

Based on the above, Plaintiff states that this is the opportunity for this Honorable Court to
do the right thing and correct a blatant disregard of the law, and a miscarriage of justice, by
acknowledging the facts in Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff
prays this honorable court to dismiss Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment and instead grant Plaintiff the prayers in the said Motion. Plaintiff prays this Court
grant her leave to amend the Complaint to add additional causes of action against the CEO of the
Hospital. Further, Plaintiff prays that she be awarded costs of the suit. Lastly, Plaintiff prays this
Court issues any other order it deems just.
Dated: 31 July 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

7

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on 28 July 2022, copies of the foregoing document have been sent by
United States Mail 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: 28 July 2022

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
EUN JUNG LIM

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 )

 

 

Verified by MonsterInsights