SUMMARY JUDGMENT

EUN JUNG LIM
17192 Murphy Ave., # 17723
Irvine, CA 92623
949/229-0302
invokemyright@protonmail.com
Plaintiff In Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

EUN JUNG LIM,
Plaintiff
v.
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
PRESBYTERIAN; and HERBERT
CONRAD,
Defendants

Case No.: 30-2022-01242187

EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, EUN JUNG LIM, hereby files this Evidence in Support of Amended Motion for
Summary Judgment, pursuant to Cal. R. 3.1350(c)(4).

Respectfully submitted,
EUN JUNG LIM
17192 Murphy Ave., # 17723
Irvine, CA 92623
949/229-0302
invokemyright@protonmail.com
Plaintiff In Pro Per

EVIDENCE “A”

Page 1 of 2
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS Code of Civil Procedure § 417.10
Judicial Council of California
POS-010 [Rev. January 1, 2007]
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (name and Address)
Eun Jung Lim
17192 Murphy Ave, #17723
Irvine, CA 92623

ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff in Pro Per

FOR COURT USE ONLY

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
STREET ADDRESS: 700 Civic Center Dr West
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY AND ZIP CODE: Santa Ana, CA 92701
BRANCH NAME: Central Justice Center
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Eun Jung Lim
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian; et al.

CASE NUMBER: 30-2022-01242187-
CU-PO-CJC
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS Ref. No. or File No.:
(Separate proof of service is required for each party served.)
1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
2. I served copies of :
a. Summons
b. Complaint
c Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Sheet
d Civil Case Cover Sheet (served in complex cases only)
e cross-complaint
f. other (specify documents): Amended Complaint; Notice of Hearing Case Management Conference
3.a. Party served: (specify name of party as shown on documents served):
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
b. Person served (other than the party in item 3a) served on behalf of an entity or as an authorized agent (and not a person
under item 5b on whom substituted service was made)(specify name and relationship to the party named in item 3a):
Lisa Bynum- Registered Agent
4.Address where the party was served: 1 Hoag Dr

Newport Beach, CA 92663

5. I served the party (check proper box)
a. by personal service. I personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to
receive service of process for the party (1) on (date): (2) at: (time) :
b. by substituted service. On (date): 02/2/2022 at: (time) 12:25 PM . I left the documents listed in item 2
with or in the presence of (name and title or relationship to the person indicated in item 3): Chad Madrid- Security
Authorized to Accept
(1) (business) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the office or usual place of business
of the person to be served. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers.
(2) (home) a competent member of the household (at least 18 years of age) at the dwelling house or usual
place of abode of the party. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers.
(3) (physical address unknown) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the usual mailing
address of the person to be served, other than a United States Postal Service post office box. I informed
him or her of the general nature of the papers.
(4) I thereafter mailed (by first-class, postage prepaid) copies of the documents to the person to be served
at the place where the copies were left (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20). I mailed the documents on
(date): (city): or a declaration of mailing is attached.

2
4

Page 2 of 2
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS Code of Civil Procedure § 417.10
Judicial Council of California
POS-010 [Rev. January 1, 2007]

(5) I attach a declaration of diligence stating actions taken first to attempt personal service.
5. c. by mail and acknowledgment of receipt of service. I mailed the documents listed in item 2 to the party, to the
address shown in item 4, by first-class mail, postage prepaid,
(1) (date): (1) (city):
(3) with two copies of the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt (form 982(a)(4)) and a postage-paid return
envelope addressed to me. (Attach completed Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt (form 982(a)(4).)
(Code Civ. Proc., § 415.30.)
(4) to an address outside California with return receipt requested. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.40.)
d. by other means (specify means of service and authorizing code section):

Additional page describing service is attached.

6. The “Notice to the Person Served” (on the summons) was completed as follows:
a. as an individual defendant
b. as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
c. on behalf of (specify): Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
under the following Code of Civil Procedure section:
416.10 (corporation) 415.95 (business organization, form unknown)
416.20 (defunct corporation) 416.60 (minor)
416.30 (joint stock company/association) 416.70 (ward or conservatee)
416.40 (association or partnership) 416.90 (authorized person)
416.50 (public entity) 415.46 (occupant)
other:

7. Person who served papers
a. Name: Destiny Romero Silva
b. Address: BFRM Legal Support Services, 633 West 5
th St, 28
th Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90071

c. Telephone number: (213) 291-8383
d. The fee for service was: $
e. I am:
(1) not a registered California process server.
(2) exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b).
(3) registered California process server:

(i) owner Employee independent contractor.
(ii) Registration No.: 6238
(iii) County: Orange

8. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Or
9. I am a California sheriff or marshal and I certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: 02/03/2022
Destiny Romero Silva
___________________________________________________________ __________________________________________
(NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED PAPERS/SHERIFF OR MARSHALL) (SIGNATURE)
PLANTIFF/PETITIONER: Eun Jung Lim
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian; et al.

CASE NUMBER:
30-2022-01242187-CU-PO-CJC

3
5

ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar Number & Address):
Eun Jung Lim
17192 Murphy Ave, #17723
Irvine, CA 92623

TELEPHONE NO.: FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRACKING NO.:

ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff in Pro Per

?
NAME OF COURT & DISTRICT/BRANCH, IF ANY:
Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Central Justice Center
SHORT TITLE OF CASE:
Eun Jung Lim v. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian; et al.
PROOF OF MAILING

HEARING DATE: TIME: DEPT./DIV.: CASE NUMBER:

30-2022-01242187-CU-PO-CJC

1. I served the:
a. List documents: Summons; Amended Complaint; Notice of Hearing Case Management Conference
b. on (name): List all people served: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
c. by serving:
d. by delivery: TO RESIDENCE TO BUSINESS OTHER ( )
1. date:
2. time:
3. address:
e. by mailing
1. date: 02/03/2022
2. address: 1 Hoag Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92663

2. Manner of service: a. Personal ______ b. By depositing in the mail in the city of ___Los Angeles____
3. At the time of service I was at least 18 years old and not a party to the action.
4. Server’s information:
Bree Weathers
BFRM LEGAL SUPPORT SERVICES
633 W. Fifth Street, 28th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 291-8383
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed on:
Date: 02/03/2022 Signature_________Bree Weathers _____________________

4
6

8
10

9
11

10
12

11
13

12
14

13
15

14
16

15
17

16
18

17
19

18
20

19
21

EVIDENCE “B”

CARROLL, KELLY, TROTTER & FRANZEN
MICHAEL J. TROTTER (SBN 139034)
2 JO LYNN VALOFF (SBN 177081)
3
111 West Ocean Boulevard, 14th Floor
Post Office Box 22636
Long Beach, California 90801-5636 4 Telephone No. (562) 432-5855 / Facsimile No. (562) 432-8785
mjtrotter@cktflaw.com / jlvaloff@cktflaw.com 5
6 Attorneys for Defendant, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
7
8
9
10

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

11 EUN JUNG LIM, CASE NO.: 30-2022-01242187
12
13 vs.

Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT HOAG
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
PRESBYTERIAN TO PLAINTIFF’S
14 HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
15 PRESBYTERIAN; and HERBERT CONRAD, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO:
in his official and individual capacity, JUDGE: LINDA MARKS
16
17
18

DEPARTMENT: C25
Defendant. Complaint Filed:
Trial Date:

1/25/22
Not Set

COMES NOW defendant HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN m
19 answering plaintiffs first amended complaint on file herein, for itself alone, and for no other
20 defendant, admits, denies and alleges as follows:
21 1. Under the provisions of Section 431.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
22 this answering defendant denies both generally and specifica lly each and every allegation in said
23 first amended complaint, and the whole thereof, including each and every pw·ported cause of action
24 contained therein, and denies that plaintiff has been damaged in the sum or sums alleged, or in any
25 other swn or sums, or at all.
26 2. Further answering plaintiffs first amended complaint on file herein, and the whole
27 thereof, including each and every purpo11ed cause of action contained therein, this answering
28 defendant denies that plaintiff sustained any injury, damage or loss, if any, by reason of any act or
E:\1616503-46\Pld\ANSWER00 I .Docx ]
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT 21
23

1 omission on the part of this answering defendant, or any agent, servant, or employee of this
2 answering defendant.
3
4
5 3.

AS AND FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
That it specifically denies that any negligence on its part contributed to or was a
6 proximate cause of any injuries sustained by plaintiff. But, in the event it is found that this
7 answering defendant was negligent in any manner or to any degree, this answering defendant
8 alleges upon information and belief that certain co-defendants may be negligent to a certain degree
9 for the injuries or damage sustained by plaintiff, and further alleges upon information and belief
10 that there may be persons or parties not named to this action, including plaintiff, who likewise
11 have contributed to a certain degree to the injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff;
12 whereby, this answering defendant contends that in the event there is found to be fault on the part
13 of this answering defendant, which in any manner or degree contributed to the injuries of plaintiff,
14 that a finding should be made apportioning and fixing the comparative fault of any or all parties
15 or persons whether named to this action or otherwise.
16
17
18 4.

AS AND FOR A SECOND, SEP ARA TE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
That plaintiffs first amended complaint on file herein, and the whole thereof, and
19 each and every purported cause of action contained therein is barred by the running of the statute
20 of limitations as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 340.5.
21
22
23 5.

AS AND FOR A THIRD, SEP ARA TE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
That this answering defendant may elect to limit and diminish plaintiffs alleged

24 damages pursuant to Civil Code, Section 3333.1.
25
26
27 6.

AS AND FORA FOURTH, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
That plaintiff is not entitled to recover general damages in any amount in excess of

28 $250,000.00, pursuant to Civil Code, Section 3333.2.
E:\ 16\6503-46\Pld\ANSWER00 l.Docx 2
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT 22
24

1
2
3 7.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
That certain limitations in regard to fees shall apply to any recovery for damages

4 pursuant to Business and Professions Code, Section 6146.
5
6
7 8.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH, SEP ARA TE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
That if there is a judgment in favor of said plaintiff and against this answering
8 defendant, and if such recovery exceeds $50,000.00, that such damage be paid by periodic
9 payments pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 667. 7.
10
11
12

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

9. That plaintiffs action is barred pursuant to the provisions of California Civil Code,

13 Section 1714.8.
14
15
16

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH, SEP ARA TE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
10. That it may elect to seek the protections available under Business and Professions

17 Code, Sections 2395 and 2396.
18
19
20

AS AND FOR A NINTH, SEP ARA TE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
11. That each and every cause of action asserted by plaintiff is subject to arbitration as
21 provided by written agreement; arbitration is a condition precedent to commencement and
22 maintenance of this action and this answering defendant hereby asserts its right to stay the
23 proceedings in this action until arbitration of the claim and controversies alleged herein has been
24 completed.
25
26
27

AS AND FOR A TENTH, SEP ARA TE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
12. That the liability, if any, of this answering defendant is further limited by the
28 provisions of Proposition 51 as set forth in California Civil Code, Sections 1431, 1431.1, 1431.2,
E:\ 16\6503-46\Pld\ANSWER00 1.Docx 3
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT 23
25

1 1431.3, 1431.4 and 1431.5.
2 AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
3 DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
4 13. That this answering defendant is informed and believes, and based upon such
5 information and belief, alleges that at the time and place of the accident alleged in plaintiffs first
6 amended complaint, plaintiff was in the scope of her employment; that at said time and place, said
7 employer had in force and effect a policy of Worker’s Compensation Insurance; that plaintiff has
8 received benefits under the terms of said policy; that any injuries sustained by plaintiff was
9 proximately caused by the negligence of said employer; that any recovery in this case should be
10 reduced by the total amount of all payments made pursuant to plaintiffs claim for Worker’s
11 Compensation; and that the doctrine as set forth in the case of Witt v. Jackson, 57 C.2d 57 [1961],
12 applies herein.
13
14
15

AS AND FOR A TWELFTH, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
14. That plaintiffs action is barred in that plaintiffs exclusive remedy against this
16 answering defendant is in Worker’s Compensation pursuant to the California Labor Code. [Labor
17 Code, Section 3601].
18
19
20

AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH, SEP ARA TE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
15. That if plaintiff, in fact, sustained or will sustain any injuries or damages as a result
21 of any act or omission on the part of this answering defendant (which supposition is not admitted
22 by this answering defendant, but is merely stated for the purpose of this affirmative defense), then
23 plaintiff at the time and place alleged in said first amended complaint was herself guilty of
24 negligence in failing to exercise that degree of care for her own safety and protection that ordinarily
25 prudent persons would exercise under the circumstances, and said negligence contributed as a legal
26 cause in some degree to the injuries and damages being claimed by plaintiff herein, thereby barring
27 and/or reducing plaintiffs’ recovery.
28 Ill
E:\16\6S03-46\Pld\ANSWER00I.Docx 4
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT 24
26

1
2
3
AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH, SEP ARA TE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
16. That even if a reasonable person in plaintiff’s position may not have consented to
4 the medical techniques, treatment and medication provided, had she been given sufficient
5 information about the risk, plaintiff still would have consented to the procedure.
6
7
8

AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH, SEP ARA TE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
17. That it contends that there is no basis for liability of said defendant to plaintiff.
9 However, without withdrawing that position, it alleges in the alternative that should this answering
10 defendant be found liable to plaintiff on the first amended complaint herein, this answering
11 defendant should, in whole or in part, be indemnified by the other defendants, by those responsible
12 persons, and/or entities who would be liable to plaintiff if joined herein, according to the degree
13 of involvement or responsibility for causing loss to plaintiff; and by plaintiff to the degree and
14 extent of plaintiffs own contributory negligence or to the extent plaintiff is found to assume the
15 position of any other responsible person and/or entity with whom plaintiff has settled her claims
16 separately or in any other manner have attempted to exonerate.
17
18
19

AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH, SEP ARA TE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
18. That the first amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause

20 of action against this answering defendant.
21
22
23

AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
19. That at all times herein mentioned, plaintiff knew, or should have known, that
24 plaintiff was submitting herself to medical techniques, treatment and medication which, because
25 of the condition of plaintiff, rendered her susceptible to potential complications, injury, or damage
26 and that by submitting herself to such medical techniques, treatment and medication, plaintiffs
27 freely, voluntarily and expressly assumed all risks attendant thereto, thereby barring and/or
28 reducing plaintiff’s recovery herein.
E:\16\6503-46\Pld\ANSWER00 l .Docx 5
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT 25
27

1
2
3
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTEENTH, SEP ARA TE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

20. That the negligence alleged in the first amended complaint was not a substantial
4 factor in bringing about the alleged injuries and, therefore, was not a contributing cause, but was
5 superseded by the negligence of a third party or of an independent, intervening, sole and proximate
6 cause unrelated to any activity of this answering defendant, which was the sole and proximate
7 cause of any alleged injuries or damages suffered.
8
9
10

AS AND FOR A NINETEENTH, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

21. That it is entitled to an offset and/or reduction and plaintiff is barred from
11 recovering any and all amounts paid for plaintiffs alleged injuries by way of settlement or
12 judgment of any claim, incident or lawsuit which may have contributed to the injuries referred to
13 in the first amended complaint, in the event this answering defendant should be found liable to
14 plaintiff, although this supposition is denied and only stated for the purposes of this affirmative
15 defense.
16
17
18

AS AND FOR A TWENTIETH, SEP ARA TE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

22. That plaintiffs prayer for punitive damages is inappropriate, pursuant to California

19 Code of Civil Procedure, Section 425.13.
20
21
22

AS AND FORA TWENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, THIS ANSWERING DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

23. That plaintiffs first amended complaint on file herein, and the whole thereof, and
23 each and every purported cause of action contained therein, fails to state facts sufficient to
24 constitute a claim for or justify an imposition or award of punitive damages against this answering
25 defendant, pursuant to California Civil Code, Section 3294, et seq.
26 Ill
27 Ill
28 Ill
E:\ 16\6503-46\Pld\ANSWER00 l .Docx 6
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT 26
28

1 WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays that plaintiff take nothing by way of her
2 first amended complaint on file herein, that this answering defendant may be dismissed with its
3 costs of suit incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as the court may deem just and
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
proper.
DATED: March 8, 2022 CARROLL, KE LY, TROTTER & FRANZEN

By: —————-
MICH A L J. TROTTER
JO LYNN V ALOFF
Attorneys for Defendant, Hoag Memorial
Hospital Presbyterian

E:\16\6503-46\Pld\ANSWER00 l .Docx 7
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT 27
29

PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action. My business address is Post Office Box 22636, Long Beach,
4 CA 90801-5636. On March )<‘ , 2022, I served a true and conect copy of the following document
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN TO
5 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the list of interested parties below:
6 Eun Jung Lim 16-6503-46
17192 Murphy Ave., # 17723
7 Irvine, CA 92623
949/200-2049
8 helloeil@gmail.com
Plaintiff In Pro Per
9
10
11
12
□

13 □
14
15
16 □
17
18
19
20
21
□

22 ~
23

By United States Mail (CCP §§1013a, et seq.): I enclosed said document(s) in a sealed
envelope or package to each addressee. I placed the envelope for collection and mailing,
following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the finn’s practice for
collecting and processing co1Tespondence for mailing. On the same day that
coITespondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course
of business with the United States Postal Service, with postage fully prepaid.
By Overnight Delivery/Express Mail (CCP §§1013(c)(d), et seq.): I enclosed said
document(s) in a sealed envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier to
each addressee. I placed the envelope or package, delivery fees paid for, for collection and
overnight delivery at an office or at a regularly utilized drop box maintained by the express
service carrier at 111 West Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, California.
By Fax Transmission (CRC 2.306): Based on a written agreement of the parties to accept
service by fax transmission, I faxed said document(s) to each addressee’s fax number. The
facsimile machine that I utilized, (562) 432-8785, complied with California Rules of Court,
Rule 2.30 I (3), and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2.306(h)( 4), I
caused the machine to print a record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to the
original of this proof of service.
By Messenger Service: I enclosed said document(s) in a sealed envelope or package to
each addressee. I provided them to a professional messenger service (Signal Attorney
Service) for service. An original proof of service by messenger will be filed pursuant to
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1 300(c).
Electronic Mail. Pursuant to California Rule of Court, C.C.P., section 1010.6(e), service
is by e-mail only.
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and of the

24 United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
25 Executed on March ~ , 2022, at Long Beach, C lifornia.
26
27
28

MESSINEO

E:\ 16\6503-46\Pld\ANSWER00 1.Docx 8
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PR.ESBYTERJAN TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT 28
30

EVIDENCE “C”

30
32

EVIDENCE “D”

Case Summary:
Case Id: 30-2022-01242187-CU-PO-CJC
Case Title: EUN JUNG LIM VS. HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN
Case Type: PI/PD/WD – OTHER
Filing Date: 01/25/2022
Category: CIVIL – UNLIMITED
Register Of Actions:
ROA Docket Filing
Date
Filing
Party Document Select
1 COMPLAINT FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON 01/25/2022 01/25/2022 11 pages
2 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON

01/25/2022 01/25/2022 1 pages

3 REQUEST TO WAIVE COURT FEES FILED BY LIM, EUN

JUNG ON 01/25/2022 01/25/2022 NA

4 CASE ASSIGNED TO JUDICIAL OFFICER MARKS, LINDA

ON 01/25/2022. 01/25/2022 NV

5
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR
06/06/2022 AT 01:30:00 PM IN C25 AT CENTRAL JUSTICE

CENTER.

01/25/2022 2 pages

6 ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER (SUPERIOR COURT) FILED

BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON 01/25/2022 01/25/2022 3 pages

7 LIM, EUN JUNG REQUEST TO WAIVE COURT FEES

GRANTED IN WHOLE ON 01/25/2022. 01/25/2022 NV

8 AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON

01/27/2022 01/27/2022 11 pages

9 SUMMONS ISSUED AND FILED FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG

ON 01/27/2022 01/27/2022 1 pages

10 AMENDED COMPLAINT (SECOND) SUBMITTED BY LIM,

EUN JUNG REJECTED ON 02/02/2022. 02/02/2022 1 pages

REQUEST TO WAIVE ADDITIONAL COURT FEES
(SUPERIOR COURT) FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON

02/03/2022

02/03/2022 NA

12 PROOF OF SERVICE OF 30-DAY SUMMONS & COMPLAINT
– SUBSTITUTE FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON 02/08/2022 02/08/2022 3 pages
13 PROOF OF NON-SERVICE FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON

02/08/2022 02/08/2022 1 pages

14 ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER (SUPERIOR COURT) FILED

BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON 02/07/2022 02/07/2022 3 pages

15
LIM, EUN JUNG REQUEST TO WAIVE ADDITIONAL COURT
FEES (SUPERIOR COURT) GRANTED IN WHOLE ON

02/07/2022.

02/07/2022 NV

16 CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/ELECTRONIC

SERVICE 02/09/2022 4 pages

17 E-FILING TRANSACTION 21131498 RECEIVED ON

03/08/2022 02:33:55 PM. 03/09/2022 NV

18 ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY HOAG
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN ON 03/08/2022 03/08/2022 8 pages

Civil Case Access – Print Case Information https://civilwebshopping.occourts.org/PrintCase.do

1 of 6 8/3/22, 9:33 PM
32
34

ROA Docket Filing
Date
Filing
Party Document Select

19
PAYMENT RECEIVED BY ONELEGAL FOR 195 – ANSWER
OR OTHER 1ST PAPER IN THE AMOUNT OF 435.00,
TRANSACTION NUMBER 13018097 AND RECEIPT NUMBER

12846044.

03/09/2022 1 pages

20 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION

FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON 03/16/2022 03/16/2022 8 pages

21 NOTICE OF MOTION (FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT) FILED

BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON 03/16/2022 03/16/2022 2 pages

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR
ADJUDICATION SCHEDULED FOR 08/01/2022 AT 10:00:00
AM IN C25 AT CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER.

03/16/2022 NV

23 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG

ON 03/17/2022 03/17/2022 3 pages

24 NOTICE OF ERRATA (TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT) FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON 03/17/2022 03/17/2022 6 pages
25 E-FILING TRANSACTION NUMBER 41316982 REJECTED. 04/01/2022 1 pages
26 AFFIDAVIT – OTHER (IN SUPPORT OF FEE SCHEDULE)

FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON 04/01/2022 04/01/2022 7 pages

27 MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG

ON 05/17/2022 05/17/2022 15 pages

28
MOTION TO QUASH DISCOVERY SUBPOENA SCHEDULED
FOR 09/12/2022 AT 10:00:00 AM IN C25 AT CENTRAL

JUSTICE CENTER.

05/17/2022 NV

29 E-FILING TRANSACTION 41337436 RECEIVED ON

05/20/2022 01:55:18 PM. 05/20/2022 NV

30 NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES FILED BY HOAG
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN ON 05/20/2022 05/20/2022 3 pages

31
PAYMENT RECEIVED BY DDSLEGAL FOR 209 – ADVANCED
JURY FEE (NON-REFUNDABLE) IN THE AMOUNT OF
150.00, TRANSACTION NUMBER 13052026 AND RECEIPT

NUMBER 12880042.

05/20/2022 1 pages

32 E-FILING TRANSACTION 1991239 RECEIVED ON 05/20/2022

01:55:21 PM. 05/20/2022 NV

33 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY HOAG
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN ON 05/20/2022 05/20/2022 11 pages
34 E-FILING TRANSACTION 21162197 RECEIVED ON

05/21/2022 05:10:09 PM. 05/23/2022 NV

35 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY LIM, EUN

JUNG ON 05/23/2022 05/23/2022 5 pages

36 E-FILING TRANSACTION 31159753 RECEIVED ON

05/21/2022 05:10:19 PM. 05/23/2022 NV

37 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY LIM, EUN

JUNG ON 05/23/2022 05/23/2022 5 pages

38 E-FILING TRANSACTION 1994426 RECEIVED ON 05/30/2022

11:36:41 PM. 05/31/2022 NV

Civil Case Access – Print Case Information https://civilwebshopping.occourts.org/PrintCase.do

2 of 6 8/3/22, 9:33 PM
33
35

ROA Docket Filing
Date
Filing
Party Document Select

39 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
SERVE PLEADING AND ORDERS RECEIVED ON 05/31/2022. 05/31/2022 2 pages
40
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
SERVE PLEADING AND ORDERS SUBMITTED BY LIM, EUN

JUNG REJECTED ON 05/31/2022.

05/31/2022 1 pages

41 CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/ELECTRONIC

SERVICE 05/31/2022 2 pages

42 E-FILING TRANSACTION 1995055 RECEIVED ON 05/31/2022

11:52:28 PM. 06/01/2022 NV

43 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT FILED BY LIM, EUN

JUNG ON 05/31/2022 05/31/2022 4 pages

44 E-FILING TRANSACTION 31163325 RECEIVED ON

05/31/2022 11:52:34 PM. 06/01/2022 NV

45 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT FILED BY LIM, EUN

JUNG ON 05/31/2022 05/31/2022 4 pages

46 E-FILING TRANSACTION 31161512 RECEIVED ON

05/25/2022 09:58:31 PM. 06/01/2022 NV

47 REQUEST FOR COURT REPORTER BY PARTY WITH FEE
WAIVER FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON 05/25/2022 05/25/2022 1 pages
48 E-FILING TRANSACTION 21165767 RECEIVED ON

06/01/2022 08:17:42 AM. 06/01/2022 NV

49 STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT FILED BY LIM, EUN

JUNG ON 06/01/2022 06/01/2022 1 pages

50 E-FILING TRANSACTION 1996823 RECEIVED ON 06/05/2022

10:56:57 PM. 06/06/2022 NV

51 MOTION FOR ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FILED BY

LIM, EUN JUNG ON 06/06/2022 06/06/2022 19 pages

MOTION FOR ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
SCHEDULED FOR 10/03/2022 AT 10:00:00 AM IN C25 AT

CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER.

06/06/2022 NV

53 E-FILING TRANSACTION 41342772 RECEIVED ON

06/03/2022 03:33:11 PM. 06/06/2022 NV

54 OBJECTION FILED BY HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

PRESBYTERIAN ON 06/03/2022 06/03/2022 11 pages

55 E-FILING TRANSACTION 41343563 RECEIVED ON

06/06/2022 07:29:51 PM. 06/06/2022 NV

56 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG

ON 06/06/2022 06/06/2022 1 pages

57
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR
09/12/2022 AT 01:30:00 PM IN C25 AT CENTRAL JUSTICE

CENTER.

06/06/2022 NV

58
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE CONTINUED TO
09/12/2022 AT 01:30 PM IN THIS DEPARTMENT PURSUANT

TO PARTY’S MOTION.

06/06/2022 NV

Civil Case Access – Print Case Information https://civilwebshopping.occourts.org/PrintCase.do

3 of 6 8/3/22, 9:33 PM
34
36

ROA Docket Filing
Date
Filing
Party Document Select

59 MINUTES FINALIZED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE 06/06/2022 01:30:00 PM. 06/07/2022 1 pages

60 E-FILING TRANSACTION 11001234 RECEIVED ON

06/15/2022 03:51:43 PM. 06/15/2022 NV

61 OPPOSITION FILED BY HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

PRESBYTERIAN ON 06/15/2022 06/15/2022 5 pages

62 E-FILING TRANSACTION 31169447 RECEIVED ON

06/15/2022 03:51:41 PM. 06/16/2022 NV

63 OBJECTION FILED BY HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

PRESBYTERIAN ON 06/15/2022 06/15/2022 6 pages

64 E-FILING TRANSACTION 41348640 RECEIVED ON

06/19/2022 10:56:07 PM. 06/20/2022 NV

65 APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR PUBLICATION OF
SUMMONS OR CITATION RECEIVED ON 06/20/2022. 06/20/2022 10 pages
66 E-FILING TRANSACTION 21175378 RECEIVED ON

06/23/2022 10:48:49 PM. 06/23/2022 NV

67 PROOF OF SERVICE FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON

06/23/2022 06/23/2022 2 pages
68 E-FILING TRANSACTION NUMBER 31172947 REJECTED. 06/24/2022 1 pages
69 E-FILING TRANSACTION 41351272 RECEIVED ON

06/24/2022 02:29:55 PM. 06/24/2022 NV

70 EX PARTE APPLICATION – OTHER FILED BY LIM, EUN

JUNG ON 06/24/2022 06/24/2022 6 pages

71 EX PARTE SCHEDULED FOR 06/27/2022 AT 01:30:00 PM IN

C25 AT CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER. 06/24/2022 NV

72 E-FILING TRANSACTION 21175991 RECEIVED ON

06/26/2022 10:11:04 PM. 06/27/2022 NV

73 NOTICE OF ERRATA FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON

06/27/2022 06/27/2022 6 pages

74 E-FILING TRANSACTION 41351560 RECEIVED ON

06/26/2022 10:23:24 PM. 06/27/2022 NV

75 PROOF OF NON-SERVICE FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON

06/27/2022 06/27/2022 1 pages

76 E-FILING TRANSACTION 11005388 RECEIVED ON

06/26/2022 10:30:43 PM. 06/27/2022 NV
77 NOTICE – OTHER FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON 06/27/2022 06/27/2022 2 pages
78 E-FILING TRANSACTION 11005387 RECEIVED ON

06/26/2022 10:19:17 PM. 06/27/2022 NV

79 APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR PUBLICATION OF
SUMMONS OR CITATION RECEIVED ON 06/27/2022. 06/27/2022 2 pages
80 MINUTES FINALIZED FOR EX PARTE 06/27/2022 01:30:00

PM. 06/29/2022 1 pages

81 CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/ELECTRONIC

SERVICE 06/29/2022 2 pages

Civil Case Access – Print Case Information https://civilwebshopping.occourts.org/PrintCase.do

4 of 6 8/3/22, 9:33 PM
35
37

ROA Docket Filing
Date
Filing
Party Document Select

82
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR PUBLICATION OF
SUMMONS OR CITATION SUBMITTED BY LIM, EUN JUNG

REJECTED ON 07/05/2022.

07/05/2022 1 pages

83
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR PUBLICATION OF
SUMMONS OR CITATION SUBMITTED BY LIM, EUN JUNG

REJECTED ON 07/05/2022.

07/05/2022 1 pages

84 E-FILING TRANSACTION 31176738 RECEIVED ON

07/05/2022 01:36:50 PM. 07/05/2022 NV

85 NOTICE OF RULING FILED BY HOAG MEMORIAL

HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN ON 07/05/2022 07/05/2022 4 pages

86 E-FILING TRANSACTION 31182525 RECEIVED ON

07/18/2022 06:00:07 PM. 07/18/2022 NV

87
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION FILED BY
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN ON

07/18/2022

07/18/2022 7 pages

88 E-FILING TRANSACTION 41360511 RECEIVED ON

07/18/2022 06:02:03 PM. 07/18/2022 NV

89 SEPARATE STATEMENT FILED BY HOAG MEMORIAL

HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN ON 07/18/2022 07/18/2022 9 pages

90 E-FILING TRANSACTION 21184955 RECEIVED ON

07/18/2022 06:02:19 PM. 07/18/2022 NV

91 OPPOSITION FILED BY HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

PRESBYTERIAN ON 07/18/2022 07/18/2022 11 pages

92 E-FILING TRANSACTION 11014339 RECEIVED ON

07/18/2022 06:02:20 PM. 07/18/2022 NV

93
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION FILED BY
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN ON

07/18/2022

07/18/2022 7 pages

94 E-FILING TRANSACTION 41360512 RECEIVED ON

07/18/2022 06:02:33 PM. 07/18/2022 NV

95
NOTICE OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE FILED BY HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

PRESBYTERIAN ON 07/18/2022

07/18/2022 170 pages

96 REQUEST FOR COURT REPORTER BY PARTY WITH FEE
WAIVER FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON 07/25/2022 07/25/2022 1 pages
97 E-FILING TRANSACTION 41365019 RECEIVED ON

07/28/2022 02:51:33 PM. 07/29/2022 NV

98 APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR PUBLICATION OF
SUMMONS OR CITATION RECEIVED ON 07/28/2022. 07/28/2022 2 pages
99 E-FILING TRANSACTION 31187167 RECEIVED ON

07/28/2022 05:29:01 PM. 07/29/2022 NV

100 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY

LIM, EUN JUNG ON 07/28/2022 07/28/2022 7 pages

Civil Case Access – Print Case Information https://civilwebshopping.occourts.org/PrintCase.do

5 of 6 8/3/22, 9:33 PM
36
38

ROA Docket Filing
Date
Filing
Party Document Select

101
RESPONSE (TO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT) FILED BY LIM, EUN JUNG ON

08/01/2022

08/01/2022 5 pages

Participants:

Name Type Assoc Start Date End Date

CARROLL KELLY TROTTER & FRANZEN ATTORNEY 03/09/2022
HERBERT CONRAD DEFENDANT 01/25/2022
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN DEFENDANT 01/25/2022
EUN JUNG LIM PLAINTIFF 01/25/2022
Hearings:

Description Date Time Department Judge
MOTION FOR ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 10/03/2022 10:00C25 MARKS
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 09/12/2022 01:30C25
MOTION TO QUASH DISCOVERY SUBPOENA 09/12/2022 10:00C25 MARKS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR
ADJUDICATION 08/01/2022 10:00C25 MARKS

Print this page

Civil Case Access – Print Case Information https://civilwebshopping.occourts.org/PrintCase.do

6 of 6 8/3/22, 9:33 PM
37
39

EVIDENCE “E”

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF FEE SCHEDULE

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
Eun Jung Lim
Irvine, California [92623]
invokemyright@protonmail.com
Plaintiff in Pro Per

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

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF FEE
SCHEDULE

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF FEE SCHEDULE

I, EUN JUNG LIM, hereby state as follows:
1. I am the Plaintiff in the above captioned case.
2. I am over the age of 18 years and am a party to this action.

39
41

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF FEE SCHEDULE

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. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration, and if
called as a witness, could and would testify competently to the truth of the
facts as stated herein.
4. I filed an action against the Defendants on or about January 25, 2022.
5. On or about March 8, 2022, Defendant Hoag Memorial Hospital
Presbyterian’s attorney1

filed an Answer to my Complaint.

6. I filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on or about March 16, 2022. In
addition to the grounds in the said Motion, I also allege that I am entitled to
Summary Judgment because the Defendant replied to my Complaint past the
30 days’ time limit. Notably, I served the Summons on the Defendant on
February 2, 2022. The Defendant had 30 days to respond according to the
law. However, Defendant filed an answer on or about March 8, 2022.
Further, Defendant filed an incorrect proof of service by email. Specifically,
my email is incorrect in the said proof of service.
7. I do hereby set forth fees to be instated from the date of Injury January 25,
2020 against the Defendants.
8. The fees are subject to change at any time without prior notice. Eun Jung
Lim is the only authorized soul to alter, void, and/or enforce said fees and

1 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.)

40
42

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF FEE SCHEDULE

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

may do so at any time.
9. WHEREAS I TESTIFY THAT THIS CONTRACT IS LEGALLY AND
LAWFULLY BINDING AND IS NON-NEGOTIABLE.
10.WHEREAS this is a formal notice of a fee schedule for all lawful and
unlawful matters relating to Case No.: 30-2022-01242187.
11.The fee will accrue as follows starting January 25, 2020:

• $ 1,440,000 per day staring January 25, 2020 (every minute attracting
$1000)
• The $ 1,440,000.00 is arrived at by multiplying the number of minutes in
a day (1 day = [24 hours/day] × [60 minutes/hour] = 1440 by the fee per
minute ($1000).
• For each filing to court services: $ 25,000.00
• For each vehicle transportation to courthouse or attorney: $25,000.00
• For each Deposition hearing: $100,000 .00
• For each letter that I have to write to DEFENDANTS
and/or AGENTS: $7,000.00
• For each letter I receive and read from DEFENDENTS AND/OR
AGENTS RESPONDENTS/AGENTS/demands: $7,000.00
• For each demand I need to reply: $ 7,000.00
• For each phone call I have to make to relevant bodies: $7000; Plus $500
per hour
• Every Appearance in court: $500,000
• Time in Court: $75,000/hour
with 1 hour min.
• Any documents produced by me: $90,000.00
• Produce any personal information for any kind :
• Financial Information: $500,000
• Driver’s License: $1,000,000.00

41
43

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF FEE SCHEDULE

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

• Social Security Number $ 1,000,000.00
• Any documents produced by me $10,000.00 per
document

Legal Arguments

Exemplary fees and/or punitive damages may be granted, by way of
punishing the defendant, in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising
from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the
defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. See Cal. Civ. § 3294(a).
The decision to award punitive damages is exclusively the function of the
trier of fact. So too is the amount of any punitive damage award. The relevant
considerations are the nature of the defendant’s conduct, the defendant’s wealth,
and the plaintiff’s actual damages. Gagnon v. Continental Casualty Co., 1989 211
Cal.App.3d 1598, 1602 [260 Cal.Rptr. 305].
By placing the defendant’s conduct on one occasion into the context of a
business practice or policy, an individual plaintiff can demonstrate that the conduct
toward him or her was more blameworthy and warrants a stronger penalty to deter
continued or repeated conduct of the same nature. Izell v. Union Carbide Corp.
(2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 962, 986, fn. 10[180 Cal.Rptr.3d 382].
The Plaintiff asserts that the conduct of the Defendants was so capricious
and arbitrary that the Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages. Further, the actions

42
44

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF FEE SCHEDULE

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
and/or inactions of the Defendants have caused the Plaintiff notable harm and/or
damage, thus warranting the punitive damages to punish the Defendants.

Conclusion

Given the facts provided within this Affidavit, and pursuant to 28 USC §
1746(1), I move the fee schedule to be admitted and the defendants be sanctioned
for bringing a irrelevant and erroneous response before this Court, and my
summary judgment be ordered.

I therefore declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this the 21st day, of the 3rd month, in the year of our Lord and Savior,
two thousand twenty two.

____________________________
EUN JUNG LIM

43
45

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF FEE SCHEDULE

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], copies of the foregoing document
have been sent 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: ______________

Respectfully submitted,

Signature
_________________________
EUN JUNG LIM

44
46

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF FEE SCHEDULE

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

45
47

46
48

EVIDENCE “F”

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

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
EUN JUNG LIM
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Plaintiff in Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

EUN JUNG LIM,
Plaintiff
v.
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
PRESBYTERIAN; and HERBERT
CONRAD,
Defendants

Case No.: 30-2022-01242187

NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO
STRIKE ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES; & MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT.

NOTICE OF MOTION
To ALL Defendants and to their Attorneys of Record:
Please TAKE NOTICE that on [ENTER DATE], at [ENTER TIME] or soon thereafter,
the Plaintiff herein will move this Court, in Department C25 for an order granting Plaintiff’s
Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses.
This motion will be based on the grounds that the Answer contains irrelevant matter.
Further, the motion will be based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum set forth
below, on the records and file herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of
the motion.

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

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
Dated: [ENTER DATE]

____________________________
EUN JUNG LIM

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

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
EUN JUNG LIM
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Plaintiff in Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

EUN JUNG LIM,
Plaintiff
v.
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
PRESBYTERIAN; and HERBERT
CONRAD,
Defendants

Case No.: 30-2022-01242187

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER AND
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; &
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT.

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, EUN JUNG LIM, pro se, files this Motion to Strike
Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter
“CCP”) § 435 and 436. In support of this Motion, Plaintiff states as follows:

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
STRIKE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

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.

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

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
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 June 2020. After the dismissal of the case, the Plaintiff
got the Report. It is also worth noting that during the trial of the said case, no one apart from the
detective looked at the hospital camera footage that recorded the events of January 25, 2020.
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.
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 files this Motion for Summary Judgment.

ARGUMENTS

A Motion to Strike is appropriate where the Answer contains irrelevant matter

Code of Civil Procedure § 436 states in pertinent part that a Motion to Strike may be filed
to strike any false, irrelevant or improper matter inserted in any pleading, and to strike any
pleading or part thereof not drawn in conformity with the laws of this state. A motion to Strike
may also be granted if the Answer consists of immaterial allegations.

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

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

An immaterial allegation is defined in Code of Civil Procedure § 431.10 which states in
pertinent part that
“b) An immaterial allegation in a pleading is any of the following: (1) An
allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense. (2) An
allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient
claim or defense. (3) A demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by
the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint. (c) An “immaterial
allegation” means “irrelevant matter” as that term is used in Section 436.”

Traditionally, a motion to strike is used to reach defects in a pleading that are not subject
to a demurrer. 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, § 1008, p. 420; see, e.g., Hale v.

Laden (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 668, 673 (trial court, as a “ministerial act,” could strike cross-
complaint which became irrelevant.

Plaintiff contends that the entire answer should be stricken on the grounds that the answer
is not verified as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 446 which states in pertinent part that,
“When the complaint is verified, the answer shall be verified.” Thus the answer is not drawn in
conformity with the laws of this state. The proper objection where a party fails to verify a
pleading is a motion to strike. Zavala v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford, (1993) 16 Cal.
App. 4th 1755, 1761. In the instant action, Plaintiff’s Complaint was verified by a Declaration by
the Plaintiff under oath that all the averments in the Complaint were true.
The pleadings at which a motion to strike may be directed include demurrers, answers,
complaints, and cross complaints. See Code of Civil Procedure § 435(a). In the alternative,
plaintiff contends that ALL of the affirmative defenses contained in the answer should be
stricken as the affirmative defenses consist entirely of allegations that are wholly irrelevant to the
causes of action alleged in the complaint, and thus constitute immaterial allegations.
An immaterial allegation is defined in Code of Civil Procedure § 431.10 which states in
pertinent part that an immaterial allegation in a pleading is any of the following:

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

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

a) An allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense.
b) An allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or
defense.
c) A demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the
complaint or cross-complaint.
An “immaterial allegation” on the other hand means “irrelevant matter” as that term is
used in Section 436 the California Code of Civil Procedure.
The first affirmative defense alleges that there are other Defendants that should be added
to the suit, and that Plaintiff contributed to the injuries. Yet this defense is not even remotely
relevant to any of the causes of action contained in the complaint. The other affirmative defenses
like the first, consist entirely of allegations that are wholly irrelevant to the causes of action
alleged in the complaint, and thus constitute immaterial allegations which should be considered
irrelevant matter and stricken.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests that this Court grant the Motion to Strike the entire
answer filed by Defendant, or in the alternative that the Court order that ALL of the affirmative
defenses contained in the answer filed by Defendant should be stricken. Plaintiff also prays for
any further Order this Court deems just.

Respectfully submitted,

Signature
_________________________
EUN JUNG LIM

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], copies of the foregoing document have been
sent to the Defendant in the following address:

DATED: ______________

Respectfully submitted,

Signature
_________________________
EUN JUNG LIM

EVIDENCE “G”

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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
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 FOR RECONSIDERATION RE
TENATIVE RULING
Department: C25

NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN,
HERBERT CONRAD AND TO THEIR ATTORNEY(S) OF RECORD AND SPECIAL
NOTICE TO THIS HONORABLE COURT:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff Eun Jung Lim, at the venue indicated or at
such other venue as the court shall prescribe, will move this Court to Reconsider its Tentative
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and its decision denying Plaintiff‘s
Motion for Court Reporter and Fee Waiver.
This Motion will be based on the grounds that the Plaintiff is entitled to Summary
Judgment and a Court Reporter.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

Further, the motion will be based on this Notice of Motion and the Memorandum set
forth below, the Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support, and on the records and file herein, and on
such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motions.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________
EUN JUNG LIM

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT FOR MOTION TO

RECONSIDERATION

NOW COMES, EUN JUNG LIM, Plaintiff, proceeding Pro Se, pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure sections 1008(a), who hereby moves this Court to reconsider its tentative decision
Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and its decision denying Plaintiff‘s Motion
for Court Reporter and Fee Waiver.
In support of this motion, the Plaintiff states as follows:
A. THIS COURT HAS THE STATUTORY POWER TO RECONSIDER ITS PRIOR
ORDER AND MODIFY, AMEND OR REVOKE THE ORDER
Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(a) states that “When an application for an order has been
made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted
conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon
the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts,
circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to
reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the
application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge,
what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are
claimed to be shown.”
In the instant action, the tentative ruling does not amount to a final Order. As a result
since the Order is tentative, there was no notice of entry of a Final order. Thus, the 10-day
requirement imposed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a) is inapplicable.
“The 10 day period begins running when the moving party has been served with the order.” See
Novak v. Fay, (2015) 236 Cal. App. 4th 329, 335-336.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction to reconsider its prior ruling. A trial court has
jurisdiction to reconsider a prior ruling or to entertain a renewal of a previous motion. See
Stephen v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 806, 816; see also Curtin v. Koskey
(1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 873, 876 and Graham v. Hansen (1982) 128 Cal. App. 3d 965, 970.
B. THIS COURT SHOULD RECONSIDER ITS PRIOR ORDER BECAUSE THE
MOVING PARTY HAS MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF
CIRCUMSTANCES
i. The Plaintiff was prejudiced when a biased 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.
It is Plaintiff’s averment that the presiding Judge, Richard Oberholzer was biased. The
Judge 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. The judge’s bias was exhibited when he issued the tentative ruling
before hearing Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. The judge also 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

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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
filings. As such, the Judge’s aforesaid conduct amounts to prejudice against Plaintiff, which is
against the interest of justice.
ii. The Plaintiff’s motion was not premature
Plaintiff asserts that the Motion for Summary Judgment was filed timely, and therefore
Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Courts will grant a Motion for Summary
judgment if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Code of Civil
Procedure § 437c(c); see also Eriksson v. Nunnink (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 826, 847.
In the instant action, the Defendant replied to the Plaintiff’s Complaint past the 30 days’
time limit, which reason entitles Plaintiff to a Summary judgment. Notably, Plaintiff served
Summons on the Defendant on Feb 2, 2022. The Defendant had 30 days to respond according to
the law. However, Defendant filed an answer on or about March 8, 2022. Defendant’s conduct
was a blatant violation of Rule 3.110(d), which provides that 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, 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.
Besides, at the time Plaintiff filed the motion for summary judgment, Defendant Herbert
Conrad had also not filed any response to Plaintiff’s Complaint, because Plaintiff could not find
Defendant Herbert to serve him.
The foregoing shows that Plaintiff was already entitled to Summary Judgment even
before Defendant filed their late answer on March 8th
.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

iii. There was evidence in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment;
Plaintiff had also filed an Affidavit
According to Cal. Evid. Code § 452(h), the Court may take judicial notice of: “Facts and
propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate
determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.”
Further, Cal. Evid. Code § 452 proceeds to provide that the Court shall take judicial
notice of any matter specified in Cal. Evid. Code § 452, if a party makes such a request.
It was within the Court’s judicial notice, that the Defendant had not provided a timely
response to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and that they ended up filing their response past the thirty days
provided under of Rule 3.110(d). Besides, the second Defendant had not filed any response at the
time the Plaintiff filed the motion for summary judgment. This is enough evidence in support of
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, since legally, both Defendants had filed no response to
Plaintiff’s Complaint within the required time.
Also, contrary to the Judge’s assertions, the Plaintiff had filed an Affidavit of Fee
Schedule, which Plaintiff duly filed in the Court.
iv. The Plaintiff is entitled to a Court Reporter assigned by the Court
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
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

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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
reporter at least 10 calendar days prior to a trial or evidentiary hearing by submitting mandatory
court form L-0790.
In the instant action, Plaintiff cannot afford the price of a court reporter. For this reason,
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. The court had made previous fee waivers in the case such as on February 7,
2022, and January 25, 2022. Besides, the Plaintiff never waived her right to a court reporter.
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. Plaintiff then asked for continuance until such a time when a court reporter would be
available. It is Plaintiff’s averment that 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.
However, the Judge told Plaintiff 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. The Judge then continued the hearing to
August 22, 2022, which is a Monday, when there are no court reporters in Court.
The Judge’s denial of Plaintiff’s request for a court reported violated Plaintiff’s due
process rights since Plaintiff the lack of a court reporter means that Plaintiff has no official
record for the evidentiary hearing, which record would have been used for appeal.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court grant the following Order(s):
1. THAT the Court reconsiders its Tentative Decision dismissing Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment;
2. THAT this Court grant Plaintiff’s prayers in Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment;

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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. THAT this Court grant any other Order it deems just.

DATED:

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
EUN JUNG LIM

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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
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 OF EUN JUNG LIM IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Department: C25

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

I, EUN JUNG LIM, declare

1. I am the Plaintiff in this case;
2. I am entitled to Summary Judgment in consideration of the facts set forth in my Motion
for Reconsideration;
3. I am also entitled to Court Reporter appointed by this Court to provide an official record
for the evidentiary hearing, which record would be used for appeal;
4. Denying me this Motion for Reconsideration would be detrimental to me, and would

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

impede my access to justice.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.

____________________________
EUN JUNG LIM

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], a copy of the foregoing document has been
sent to the Defendant in the following address:
[ENTER ADDRESSES FOR DEFENDANT].

DATED:

____________________________
EUN JUNG LIM

EVIDENCE “H”

RESPONSE TO THE DECLARATION OF JO LYNN VALOFF AND SCOTT RUNNEL IN SUPPORT OF
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
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

RESPONSE TO THE DECLARATION
OF JO LYNN VALOFF AND SCOTT
RUNNEL IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Judge: Linda S. Marks
Department: C25

COMES NOW, Plaintiff EUN JUNG LIM, and files this Response to the Declaration of
Jo Lynn Valoff and Scott Runnel in Support of Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.

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
Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. In the Answer, Defendant denied the allegations in Plaintiff’s

RESPONSE TO THE DECLARATION OF JO LYNN VALOFF AND SCOTT RUNNEL IN SUPPORT OF
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
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 of Jo Lynn
Valoff in Support of the Opposition. In the Declaration, Jo Lynn, who is an associate of the law
firm of Carroll, Kelly, Trotter & Franzen, attorneys of record for defendant Hoag Memorial
Hospital Presbyterian. In the declaration, Jo Lynn declares as follows: “I have personal
knowledge of all facts contained herein, except for those matters stated upon information and
belief. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.” Jo Lynn also made
reference to Defendant Herbert Conrad’s Incident Report, which outlined his version of the
events in the January 25th incidence.
The Opposition also contained a declaration from Scott Runnel, who is the hospital’s IT
professional.
Both Jo Lynn and Scott declared that they saw the video of the January 25th incidence,
but not in the original format.
Plaintiff hereby files this rebuttal to the declarations, as follows:.

ARGUMENTS

i. Jo Lynn and Scott Runnel do not have personal knowledge of the facts
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.” “An averment on

RESPONSE TO THE DECLARATION OF JO LYNN VALOFF AND SCOTT RUNNEL IN SUPPORT OF
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
information and belief is inadmissible at trial, and thus cannot show a probability of prevailing
on the claim.” Evans v. Unkow, 38 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1498 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).
A witness’s testimony must be based on his or her personal knowledge to be admissible.
See West v. Sundown Little League of Stockton, Inc., 351 Cal. App. 4th 351, 358 (2002); People
v. Valencia (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 92, 103. When a witness lacks personal knowledge, that
witness’s testimony constitutes hearsay. People v. Valencia, supra, at p. 103. Unless an exception
to the hearsay rule applies, the evidence is inadmissible. Evid. Code, § 1200, subds. (a)-(b);
People v. Duarte (2000) 24 Cal.4th 603, 610.
Personal knowledge is defined as a present recollection of an impression derived from the
exercise of the witness’s own senses. See Evid. Code, § 702, Cal. Law Revision Com. Com.,
reprinted at 29B pt. 2 West’s Ann. Evid. Code (1995 ed.) foll. § 702, p. 300; People v. Lewis
(2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 356, cert. den. sub nom. Lewis v. California (2002) 535 U.S. 1019;
People v. Tatum (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 288, 297-298.
In the instant action, Jo Lynn Valoff (the Defendant’s attorney) and Scott Runnel (the
hospital’s IT professional) are not competent witness to testify in the case since they do not have
personal knowledge of the January 25th incidence. They both allege that they saw the video of
the January 25th incidence, but 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. 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. 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. 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. Also, there is no account

RESPONSE TO THE DECLARATION OF JO LYNN VALOFF AND SCOTT RUNNEL IN SUPPORT OF
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
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.
ii. Defendant Herbert Conrad’s Incident Report was not given under oath
For evidence to be admissible, the proponent must provide proof that the evidence is
reliable. This calls for authentication of the evidence. According to Cal. Ev. Code § 1400 EC,
“[a]uthentication of a writing means (a) the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a
finding that it is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is or (b) the
establishment of such facts by any other means provided by law.”
Here, Jo Lynn refers to Defendant Herbert Conrad’s Incidence Report. This report
contained an outline of facts according to Conrad. However, the report was not given under oath
or under the penalty of perjury. Therefore, the facts alleged therein have not been authenticated,
and their truthfulness have not been probed. Jo Lynn cannot therefore rely on the Incidence
Report as evidence for the said reason. Besides, it is only when a witness takes the stand that his
or her truthfulness is probed. United States v. Irizarry, 341 F. 3d 273, 311 (3rd Cir. 2003);
People v. Taylor, 180 Cal. App. 3d 622, 631 (1986). California Evidence Code section 780(e)
specifically provides that a witness’ “character for honesty or veracity or their opposites” are
among the factors a jury can consider when determining a witness’ credibility.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court disregards the
declarations of Jo Lynn and Scott Runnel for the aforesaid reasons. Plaintiff also prays for such
other and further relief that this court deems just and proper.
DATED:

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________
EUN JUNG LIM

RESPONSE TO THE DECLARATION OF JO LYNN VALOFF AND SCOTT RUNNEL IN SUPPORT OF
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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on _________, copies of the foregoing document have been

sent by United States Mail to the Defendant in the following address:

DATED: _____________

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 )

Recent Posts

Quick Links

Legal Info

Services

Contact Us