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 DEFENDANT’S
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Judge: Linda S. Marks
Department: C25
COMES NOW, Plaintiff EUN JUNG LIM, and files this Response to Defendant’s
Evidence in Support of Opposition to 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
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
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 EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
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. Concurrently with the Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendant
also filed 170-pages evidence in support of their opposition. The evidence contained a second set
of interrogatories, and request for admissions, since the first discovery requests were discredited
for insufficient service of process.
Plaintiff hereby files this rebuttal to the evidence presented by the Defendant, as follows:.
ARGUMENTS
i. There is insufficient service of process for EXHIBIT C
Electronic service on a self-represented party is permitted only with consent of that party,
confirmed in writing. According to Rule 2.251(b) of the California Rules of Court, electronic
service is only permitted when the person to be served serves a notice of acceptance of electronic
service. The notice must include the electronic service address at which the party or other person
agrees to accept service.
Defendant’s EXHIBIT C contains “Written Discovery and Deposition Notice
Propounded and Served by Defendant Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian on Plaintiff”.
Plaintiff challenges this Exhibit on the grounds of insufficient service of process. This Exhibit
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 EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
was served on Plaintiff by email yet Plaintiff did not serve a notice of consent to be served
electronically, as required by the aforesaid law.
ii. There is insufficient service of process for EXHIBIT E
CCP § 1987(a) requires that the subpoena be correctly served to the other party.
Defendant’s EXHIBIT E contains “Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian’s April 15,
2022 subpoena for records from the Irvine Police Department.” Plaintiff challenges this Exhibit
on the grounds of insufficient service of process. This Exhibit was served on an incorrect
address, incorrect last name, and it lacks an attorney’s signature. Notably, the Defendant’s Proof
of Service and Deposition Subpoena indicated 17189 Murphy Avenue, while Plaintiff’s address
is 17192 Murphy Avenue. The Defendant also referred to Plaintiff as Ms. Kim yet Plaintiff’s
name is Eun Jung Lim.
iii. Plaintiff never consented to Email Communication in EXHIBIT G
Electronic service on a self-represented party is permitted only with consent of that party,
confirmed in writing. According to Rule 2.251(b) of the California Rules of Court, electronic
service is only permitted when the person to be served serves a notice of acceptance of electronic
service. The notice must include the electronic service address at which the party or other person
agrees to accept service.
Defendant’s EXHIBIT G contains “Defendant’s Counsel’s Email of April 27, 2022,
taking the April 28, 2022 deposition of Plaintiff off calendar.” Plaintiff never gave an expressed
permission to have an email correspondence from the Defendant’s attorney as a form of
communication.
iv. There is insufficient service of process for EXHIBIT J
Electronic service on a self-represented party is permitted only with consent of that party,
confirmed in writing. According to Rule 2.251(b) of the California Rules of Court, electronic
service is only permitted when the person to be served serves a notice of acceptance of electronic
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 EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
service. The notice must include the electronic service address at which the party or other person
agrees to accept service.
Defendant’s EXHIBIT J contains “Plaintiff’s June 1, 2022 correspondence to
defendant’s counsel advising she would not accept service of documents by email.” Plaintiff
challenges this Exhibit on the grounds that the Exhibit was sent to the wrong email. The
Defendant ought to have confirmed the correct Plaintiff’s email.
v. EXHIBIT K notes that this case is not yet at issue
An action is ready for trial, or is “at issue,” after any motions directed to the last pleading
have been disposed of. See Rule 3.729 of the California Rules of Court. Besides, lawsuits from
beginning to end are in the nature of judicial proceedings, the filing of a complaint being the first
step therein, and that the subsequent pleadings are successive steps therein. See Kurata v. Los
Angeles News Publishing Co. (1935) 4 Cal.App.2d 224, 227.
Defendant’s EXHIBIT K contains “The Notice of Ruling from the June 6, 2022 Case
Management Conference in which the Court stated this Case was not yet an issue.” Plaintiff
challenges this Exhibit on the ground that the case is not at issue, which fact was acknowledged
by the Defendant’s attorneys.
vi. The Motion for Summary Judgment must first be heard before the discovery in
EXHIBIT L is considered
The Court may stay discovery pending the hearing and determination of a dispositive
motion. See Ocampo v. Williams, 21-CIV-03843, slip op. at 9 (San Mateo Cal. Super. Ct. July
25, 2022).
Defendant’s EXHIBIT L contains “Written discovery and deposition notice re-served to
Plaintiff on June 17, 2022 by certified mail.” Plaintiff challenges this Exhibit on the ground that
the there is a pending dispositive motion. The hearing for the motion for summary judgment is
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 EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
scheduled for August 22, 2022. Therefore, the discovery process must begin once the motion for
summary judgment is heard and determined.
vii. EXHIBIT M does not contain first hand witnesses, hence is invalid
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.” (Emphasis added).
“An averment on 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).
Defendant’s EXHIBIT M contains “The January 26, 2020 Security Department Incident
Report of Herbert Conrad that describes the incidents of January 25, 2020 at Hoag Hospital’s
Irvine Campus.” Further, this Exhibit contains two declarations: one from an attorney and the
other from a security IT personnel. Plaintiff challenges this Exhibit on the ground that the two
affiants are not firsthand witnesses; hence they lack personal knowledge of the facts in the case.
Since the affiants in Exhibit M lack personal knowledge of the facts in the case, this
exhibit is inadmissible.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court disregards the
Defendant’s Exhibits 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
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 EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO 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 7
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
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:
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,
_________________________
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
8
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 )