Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Orange County records plaintiff is represented by attorney Ruth Rose

Update: On Sunday February 14, 2016, at 5:13 pm, at a time when many are celebrating Valentine’s Day with a loved one, the following message was received from attorney Ruth Rose from email roseatty@aol.com: “Your information re: Zarum is incorrect. I do not remember the judge ordering me to do anything. Please remove it or I willl take legal action.”

One reason for providing these rulings is so fallible memories do not have to be relied upon. In our opinion you do not want to hire Ruth Rose as an attorney. The same Ruth Rose with multiple disciplinary actions by the California State Bar. Maybe attorney Ruth Rose should review her file and the court file. Ruth Rose: What you read below is a tentative ruling that was publicly published by the Orange County Superior Court.

30-2013-00657603

Defendant Dr. Dang’s

Motion to Strike

portions of First Amended Complaint

Violation of 11/20/13 Order

GRANT the motion to strike. The court sua sponte grants the motion as to the CORRECTED FAC, filed by stipulation and order on 3/24/14, which is now the operative pleading.

However, at their election, Plaintiffs may bring a noticed motion seeking leave to file (a) a DOE amendment or (b) a Second Amended Complaint.

Defendant SANDEEP S. DANG M.D. argues correctly that he was not named as a Defendant in the Original Complaint and that he was never properly added as a DOE Defendant. Dr. Dang argues correctly that on 1/23/14, Plaintiffs added him as a Defendant in violation of this court’s 11/20/13 order. That order expressly provided that “No new parties or causes of action may be added to this lawsuit, including via “doe amendment” without the specific written authorization of this Court.”

OSC re: Monetary Sanctions; Counsel RUTH C. ROSE to Appear in Person at the Hearing

The court orders Plaintiff’s counsel RUTH C. ROSE to appear in person at the hearing and to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for filing the FAC without leave of court. Counsel may not appear by court call.

Failure to Properly Serve Dr. Dang

Dr. Dang urges that Plaintiff still tried to serve him with the Original Complaint under an incorrect name – “Dr. Sandeep”. Dr. Dang asserts that he was never properly served with the First Amended Complaint. He represents that Plaintiff’s counsel may have tried to serve the FAC on him by emailing it to his counsel, but that this service was improper because the parties have not agreed to email service. (See generally Agrusa Decl.)

Dr. Dang states that he is making a “special appearance” to move to strike any references to him from the First Amended Complaint.

There are two problems with the argument that Dr. Dang was never properly served. First, the issue is moot because Dr. Dang has consented to the jurisdiction of this court. By bringing a motion to strike Dr. Dang has made a general appearance thereby subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of the court.

Second, Dr. Dang did not notice a motion to quash service of the summons and complaint and he does not include his own declaration to prove that he was not personally served.

General Appearance, Not a Special Appearance

As noted above, by bringing a motion to strike Dr. Dang has made a general appearance. When a litigant brings a motion to strike, it constitutes a general appearance, because he is invoking the power of the court to litigate the pleadings. (Goodwine v. Superior Court (1965) 63 Cal.2d 481; Cf. CCP 1014.)

A special appearance is limited to situations where the party only contests jurisdiction. “If a defendant by his appearance insists only upon objection that he is not in court for want of jurisdiction over his person and confines his appearance for that purpose only, he has made a special appearance, but if he raises any other question, or asks any relief which can only be granted upon hypothesis that court had jurisdiction of his person, he has made a general appearance”. (Bank of America v. Harrah (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 639; Judson v. Superior Court (1942) 21 Cal.2d 11.)

“Whether an appearance is general or special is determined by the character of the relief sought and not by the intention of the party that it shall or shall not operate as a general or special appearance. The statement of a defendant or party that he is making a special appearance is not necessarily conclusive. The test is – Did the party appear and object only to the consideration of the case or any procedure in it because the court had not acquired jurisdiction of the person of the defendant or party? If so, then the appearance is special. If, however, he appears and asks for any relief which could be given only to a party in a pending case, or which itself would be a regular proceeding in the case, it is a general appearance regardless of how adroitly, carefully or directly the appearance may be denominated or characterized as special . . . .” (People v. Williams (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 124, 129 [criminal case, citing Judson v. Superior Court (1942) 21 Cal.2d 11, 13].)