Peter Geddes Md vs. Ko'S Anaheim Professional Inc

Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.July 9, 2013

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ELECTRONICALLY FILED JOAN E. COCHRAN, ESQ. SBN 128251 Superior Court of California, JEFFREY T. BOLSON, ESQ. SBN 99139 County of Orange CORINNE L. CORTES, ESQ. SBN 269596 04M32017 2t 08-40-00 Aud COCHRAN, DAVIS & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 36 Malaga Cove Plaza, Suite 206 Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 (310) 373-0900 - telephone (310) 373-0244 - facsimile Clerk of the Superior Court By Sarah Loose Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendants, KO’S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL, INC. (i/s/h/a KO’S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL CENTER, INC., KO’S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, INC., and KO’S PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, INC.), ROBERT KO, NANCY KO, and DACEL, INC. dba KO’S PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (i/s/h/a KO’S PROPERTY MANAGEMENT) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE — CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER PETER GEDDES, M.D.; ARTHUR Y.W. LEE, D.D.S.; IN HAING HUR; TIMOTHY A. LIM, M.D.; KEICHIRO OMORI, M.D; ELAHEH FARSHIDI, M.D.; STEVEN GOODMAN, D.D.S.; JAGMINDER 8S. BHALLA, M.D.; WSM HEARING CENTERS OF ORANGE COUNTY INC; ROHANI DENTAL, INC.; MIKE OUYNH BUI, UNITED IMAGING, LLC; PACIFIC CANCER MEDICAL CENTER, INC; HARINDER GOGIA, M.D.; JORGE M. MANDELBAUM; PAUL KRASNER,; LEONARD SHAPIRO; JOSEPH H. GREINER, D.D.S.; CALIFORNIA RESEARCH TRIALS, LLC; JEONG OK LEE, M.D., Plaintiffs, v. KO’S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL, INC; KO’S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL CENTER, INC.; KO’S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, INC; KO’S PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, INC; ROBERT KO; NANCY KO; KO’S PROPERTY MANAGEMENT and DOES 1 to 50, ) N a r ” N r ” Ne er ” ee ” N e ” N e ” a e N e a a S a N e e e ” a a e S a a N e Na N e N a e a Na e N a e N e S e N a e N e N e ” a N e N a S e N e S a ” Case No.: 30-2013-00661277-CU-BC-CJC Assigned to the Hon. William Claster, Judge Presiding, Department CX-102 Complaint filed on July 9, 2013 Trial Date: January 13, 2017 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT Hearing: May 19, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: CX-102 1 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT xR N D \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~ Defendants. AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 19, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department CX-102 of the above-entitled court, located at 751 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana, CA 92701, Defendants KO’S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL, INC. and ROBERT KO (collectively, “Defendants™) will, and hereby do, move the Court for an Order setting aside the judgment and entering judgment in favor of Defendants notwithstanding the verdict rendered by the jury, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 629. Alternatively, at the time and place set forth above, Defendants will, and hereby also do, move for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict. This motion and Defendants’ Motion for a New Trial should be ruled upon at the same time. (See Code of Civil Procedure § 629.) This Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict is made on the grounds that Defendants are entitled to judgment in their or its/his favor as a matter of law based on: 1. There is no substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that Robert Ko acted with oppression, fraud or malice, especially since no alter ego liability was found to exist by the court with regard to Robert Ko and Ko’s Anaheim Professional, Inc.; 2. The lack of substantial evidence to support the verdicts with respect to Plaintiffs’ “diminution in rental value”; 3. The lack of substantial evidence to support the verdicts for lost profits, including that the jury awarded lost profits but did not reduce lost profits by the award for abatement of rent/diminution in value; and 4. The lack of substantial evidence to support any award of punitive damages against Robert Ko, individually, for conduct “not while acting on behalf of Ko’s Anaheim Professional, Inc.,” which verdict is the result of passion or prejudice. The motion will be based on this notice, the memorandum of points and authorities to be filed separately, the Declarations of Jeffrey T. Bolson and Robert Ko to be filed separately, the 2 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 evidence presented at trial, and all pleadings, papers and records on file with the court in this action. Pursuant to Palmer v. GTE California, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1265, 1280, Defendants hereby disclose that the court’s jurisdiction to rule on this motion will expire on or about May 30, 2017, which is approximately sixty days after notice of entry of judgment was served or the first notice of intention to move for a new trial was filed in the case. (See Code of Civil Procedure § 660.) DATE: April 13,2017 COCHRAN, DAVIS & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: - x TRAN, ESO. Y I. BOLSON, ESQ. co L. CORTES, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants KO’S ANAHEIM PROFESSIONAL, INC. and ROBERT KO 3 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Iam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 36 Malaga Cove Plaza, Suite 206, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274. On April 13, 2017, I served the document(s) on the party(s) in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: NOTICE OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT James G. Damon Attorneys for Plaintiffs VOSS, COOK & THEL LLP Tel: (949) 435-0225 895D t i 0 Ed - Newport Beach, CA 92660 Fax: (949) 435-0226 Wp ’ Email: jdamon(@yvctlaw.com () (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. Iam aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. () (BY FACSIMILE) I caused said document(s) to be transmitted by telecopier at approximately to the addressee(s) whose facsimile machine telephone numbers are indicated below. The above-described transmission was reported as complete without error by a transmission report issued by the facsimile transmission machine upon which the said transmission was made immediately following the transmission. 0) (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I personally served said document on Plaintiffs’ counsel while in/outside Dept. CX 102 of the Orange County Superior Court, Civil Complex, located at 751 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana, CA 92701. X) (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I caused said envelope(s) to be sent by Federal Express [Priority Overnight] to the offices of the addressee(s). () (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) Per Court Order, I delivered such documents by electronic mail. Executed on April 13, 2017, at Los Angeles, California. X) (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Natalie J. Cortum » (i : v Print Name Signature 1 PROOF OF SERVICE