SUMMARY JUDGMENT

January 6, 2024

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

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

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 Feb 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

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

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 (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 in Rule 3.110
of the California Rules of Civil practice. The parties had not stipulated to any extension of the

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

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.
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.”
Neither the Defendant nor the Defendant’s attorney(s) has seen the footage of the January 25 th
incidence. Therefore, Defendant lies in their Declaration, when they state that they have personal
knowledge of the facts of this Complaint.
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.

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

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.

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).
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.
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. On the contrary, neither the Defendant nor the
Defendant’s attorney(s) has seen the footage of the January 25 th incidence. Therefore, Defendant
lies in their Declaration, when they state that they have personal knowledge of the facts of this
Complaint. 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.

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. Further, Plaintiff prays 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 5

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

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

she be awarded costs of the suit. Lastly, Plaintiff prays this Court issues any other order it deems
just.

Dated: _________________

Respectfully submitted,

Signature
_________________________
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 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT
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

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 )