This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/24/2020 at 08:29:24 (UTC).

SERENA YOUNG VS PHILIP E HILL M.D ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/17/2018 SERENA YOUNG filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against PHILIP E HILL M D. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARK C. KIM. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1797

  • Filing Date:

    05/17/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MARK C. KIM

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Respondents and Appellants

SERENA YOUNG - INDIV.

INDIV. SERENA YOUNG -

L.A. DEPOSITIONS INC.

PHILIP E HILL

HILL M.D. PHILIP E.

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Appellants

PHILIP E HILL M.D.- INDIV.

ORTHOWORKS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LLC-LLC

LONG BEACH ADVANCED ORTHOPEDIC MEDICAL CE

DOES 1 - 25 INC

PHILIP E HILL M.D. INC. - CA CORP

INDIV. PHILIP E HILL M.D.-

HILL M.D. PHILIP E.

Defendants, Respondents and Appellants

ORTHOWORKS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LLC-LLC

PHILIP E HILL M.D. INC. - CA CORP

INDIV. SERENA YOUNG -

HILL M.D. PHILIP E.

Cross Defendants

SERENA YOUNG - INDIV

SERENA YOUNG M.D. A PROF CORP

ROES 1- 25 INC.

INDIV SERENA YOUNG -

Not Classified By Court

DANIEL E PARK LAW CORP. CHRIS CIANCI

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

TREDWAY LUMSDAINE & DOYLE(DANIEL COOPER)

TREDWAY LUMSDAINE & DOYLEDANIEL COOPER

COOPER DANIEL ALEX

BLUM HOWARD S.

Defendant Attorneys

DANIEL E PARK LAW CORP. (CHRIS CIANCI)

CIANCI CHRISTOPHER CAMPBELL

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

PARK DANIEL EAL

 

Court Documents

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE (KEVIN ROLDAN, CSR: 13463)

9/29/2020: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE (KEVIN ROLDAN, CSR: 13463)

Appellate Order Dismissing Appeal - APPELLATE ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL NOA: 07/22/20 B306769

9/23/2020: Appellate Order Dismissing Appeal - APPELLATE ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL NOA: 07/22/20 B306769

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF AMENDED JUDGMENT OR ORDER

7/7/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF AMENDED JUDGMENT OR ORDER

Application for Issuance of Writ of Execution, Possession or Sale

7/7/2020: Application for Issuance of Writ of Execution, Possession or Sale

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE VERDICT REDUCTIONS)

7/10/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE VERDICT REDUCTIONS)

Writ of Execution

6/12/2020: Writ of Execution

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 06/10/2020

6/10/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 06/10/2020

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT AND CROSSCOMPLAINANT PHILIP E. HILL, M.D.S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

5/12/2020: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT AND CROSSCOMPLAINANT PHILIP E. HILL, M.D.S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

4/10/2020: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

4/16/2020: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL

2/24/2020: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL

Reply - REPLY REPLY ISO MIL #3

10/25/2019: Reply - REPLY REPLY ISO MIL #3

Declaration - DECLARATION OF CRYSTAL NGUYEN RE NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO APPOINT A RECEIVER

8/2/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF CRYSTAL NGUYEN RE NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO APPOINT A RECEIVER

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO APPOINT A RECEIVER

8/2/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO APPOINT A RECEIVER

Case Management Statement -

9/28/2018: Case Management Statement -

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint -

8/15/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint -

Cross-Complaint -

7/19/2018: Cross-Complaint -

156 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/02/2021
  • Hearing02/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department S27 at 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2021
  • Hearing02/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department S27 at 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2020
  • Hearing12/01/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department S27 at 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802; Hearing on Motion for Order for Court to Appoint Receiver

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • Hearing11/05/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department S27 at 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by SERENA YOUNG - INDIV. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by SERENA YOUNG - INDIV. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment (TO INCLUDE DISSOLUTION OF LONG BEACH ADVANCED ORTHOPEDIC, INC., OR IN ALTERNATIVE FOR ORDER OF DECISION TO DISSOLVE DEFENDANT LONG BEACH ADVANCED ORTHOPEDIC, INC) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment TO INCLUDE DISSOLUTION OF...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2020
  • DocketTentative Ruling and Final Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
200 More Docket Entries
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by SERENA YOUNG - INDIV. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by SERENA YOUNG - INDIV. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by SERENA YOUNG - INDIV. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by SERENA YOUNG - INDIV. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketOther - (Order To Show Cause Hearing)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by SERENA YOUNG - INDIV. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: NC061797    Hearing Date: September 29, 2020    Dept: S27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH DISTRICT

SERENA YOUNG,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

PHILIP E. HILL, M.D., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: NC061797

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

Dept. S27

8:30 a.m.

September 29, 2020

Moving Party: Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant, Serena Young and Cross-Defendant, Serena Young, M.D.

Opposing Party: Defendant, Dr. Philip E. Hill, M.D.

Notice: OK

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, Serena Young filed this action against Defendants, Philip E. Hill, Philip E. Hill, M.D., Inc., Long Beach Advanced Orthopedic Medical Center, Inc., and Orthoworks of Southern California, LLC for breach of contract, breach of implied-in-fact contract, fraud by concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, involuntary dissolution of corporation accounting, and conspiracy. The crux of the complaint, which Plaintiff filed on 3/17/18, was that Young and Hill were each 50% owners of Advanced Orthopedic Medical Group, Inc., which subsequently was amended to the name Long Beach Advanced Orthopedics Medical Center. In 2017, Plaintiff learned that Hill was diverting funds and failing to properly account for income.

Hill filed a cross-complaint against Young in her individual capacity and also against Serena Young, M.D., a professional corporation. The cross-complaint included causes of action for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty. The crux of the cross-complaint was that Young honored her partnership obligations until at least 2015, but in 2016 and 2017 stopped honoring her obligations, stopped taking call, and reduced her hours unilaterally.

The case proceeded to trial by jury, and concluded with special verdict forms on 3/13/20. The jury’s special verdict on Young’s claims found in Young’s favor on the breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty claims, and found Young was damaged in the total amount of $1,057,737. This amount included $535,570 in profits taken by Hill, $300,000 as the value of half of the business, and $222,167 as interest on profits taken by Hill. The jury’s special verdict on Hill’s claims found in favor of Young on all claims in the cross-complaint.

Young submitted a proposed judgment, and Hill submitted objections. On 4/01/20, the Court signed the Judgment. The Judgment is in favor of Young and against Hill on the claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty; it is in the amount of $1,057,737.

Thereafter, Hill filed motions for new trial and JNOV. The Court ruled on the motions on 6/10/20. The Court ordered a conditional new trial on the issue of damages only unless Plaintiff accepted two reductions: first, the Court reduced the damages for half of the value of the business from $300,000 to $150,000, as the business had been valued based on two doctors working for it, and there was now only one. Second, the Court eliminated the $222,167 in prejudgment interest, as entitlement to interest should not have been submitted to the jury and was a matter for court determination. The Court scheduled a non-appearance case review re: verdict reductions for 7/10/20.

Plaintiff agreed to the proposal, and submitted an amended judgment on 7/06/20 in accordance with the terms of the 6/10/20 order; the Court signed the judgment.

Young and Hill have both appealed the judgment.

2. Motion to Amend Judgment

Young moves to amend the judgment to include findings concerning Young’s fifth cause of action for dissolution of Long Beach Advanced Orthopedic, Inc. (“LBAO”). Alternatively, she seeks an order dissolving LBAO and appointing a receiver to oversee the wind-down and dissolution process.

a. Parties’ Positions

Young contends the Court, on 3/13/20, ordered Counsel to meet and confer concerning resolution of the fifth cause of action for involuntary dissolution of LBAO. Young provides no information about any meet and confer efforts, but contends Hill has been abusing LBAO’s bank accounts for his own personal gain since 3/13/20, and therefore contends a court order on the dissolution cause of action is necessary.

Hill opposes the motion. He contends, first and foremost, that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the issue of dissolution of LBAO because both parties have appealed the judgment. Hill also argues the Court already awarded Young a judgment for $150,000 as her half of the value of LBAO; he contends Young, as a result of that verdict, has relinquished any and all rights to LBAO and cannot seek its dissolution. Finally, he contends Young has not made the necessary showing to establish the right to involuntary dissolution of LBAO under the Corporations Code.

b. Motion to Amend Judgment

Plaintiff moves for an order amending the judgment, and makes the motion pursuant to CCP §473(d), which provides that the “court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed.” Plaintiff argued the Court’s Judgment should be amended because it does not include a decision on the fifth cause of action. Plaintiff then concedes, however, that there has been no decision on the cause of action.

Thus, at most, the Court would be inclined to set a bench trial on the fifth cause of action; the current Judgment does not include a “clerical error,” such that it could be amended by way of motion.

c. Motion for Appointment of Receiver and Dissolution of LBAO

Plaintiff makes an alternative motion to dissolve LBAO and appoint a receiver to oversee the dissolution.

Plaintiff’s first request is for an order dissolving LBAO. Plaintiff seeks the order pursuant to Corporations Code §1800, et seq. Plaintiff cites no authority for the position that the Court can issue an order dissolving a corporation on noticed motion. There is a cause of action in a complaint for dissolution of corporation; typically, a cause of action in a complaint is resolved after trial, be it by bench or by jury. Because this is an equitable cause of action, trial would typically be by bench. The parties have not, however, had the cause of action tried. This issue is discussed further in the section below discussing the effect of the parties’ appeals of the Judgment. The Court will not dissolve LBAO by way of noticed motion.

Appointment of a receiver is governed by Corporations Code §1803, which provides:

If, at the time of the filing of a complaint for involuntary dissolution or at any time thereafter, the court has reasonable grounds to believe that unless a receiver of the corporation is appointed the interests of the corporation and its shareholders will suffer pending the hearing and determination of the complaint, upon the application of the plaintiff, and after a hearing upon such notice to the corporation as the court may direct and upon the giving of security pursuant to Sections 566 and 567 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may appoint a receiver to take over and manage the business and affairs of the corporation and to preserve its property pending the hearing and determination of the complaint for dissolution.

Notably, this section does not permit the Court to appoint a receiver for the purpose of overseeing the dissolution and winding down of LBAO, as Plaintiff asks. The section permits appointment of a receiver only for the purpose of taking over and managing the corporation’s business and affairs to preserve the property pending the hearing on the complaint for dissolution. Because this is not the relief sought, the motion to appoint a receiver is denied.

d. Appeal

As noted above, both parties have appealed the Judgment. A major issue is whether the Court can set a bench trial on the fifth cause of action for dissolution of the parties’ corporation while the appeal is pending.

Notably, an appeal can only be taken from a “final judgment,” which only exists once there is “no issue left for future consideration.” See Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 399. Rather than seeking a trial on the fifth cause of action, both parties appealed the Judgment. They did so after being instructed to meet and confer concerning resolution of the fifth cause of action, but before actually taking any action concerning the cause of action. Plaintiff is the party who submitted the proposed judgment; she did so on 6/23/20. Oddly, she had already filed this motion twenty days earlier, on 6/03/20. It is unclear why Plaintiff submitted a Judgment for signature while her motion to amend the judgment was pending. It is also unclear why she did not seek to have all issues in the case resolved prior to submitted a judgment.

Pursuant to CCP §916(a), “the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment…or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby…” If trial court proceedings on the issue presented would have any impact on the effectiveness of the appeal, the trial court cannot decide the issue presented. Varian Med Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189.

This is an odd situation because, as noted above, the parties should have only filed their appeals once they had a “final judgment.” Instead, they appealed a judgment on the factual (jury) causes of action, but not on the remaining equitable (bench) cause of action, and they did so without seeking entry of judgment on the equitable cause of action first.

The Court finds, however, that ruling on the fifth cause of action while the appeals are pending would violate the above rule. If the Court were to find that the company should be dissolved, and then the Court of Appeals were to reverse the jury verdict and find Hill, rather than Young, should have prevailed at trial, the rulings would be necessarily contradictory.

Hill, in reply, relies on Veyna v. Orange Cty. Nursery, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 146 to support her position that seeking a ruling on this cause of action is appropriate even though the case is on appeal. Veyna involved a situation where there was already a judgment on a cause of action for dissolution of a corporation, and the issue was whether the execution of the judgment was stayed pending the appeal. The court of appeals held it was not, because judgments in special proceedings and self-executing orders are not automatically stayed by the filing of a notice of appeal.

In this case, however, there is no judgment of dissolution in the first instance. There is, therefore, judgment on a special proceeding or self-executing order.

e. Conclusion

The motion to amend the judgment is denied, as the judgment does not contain a clerical error. The alternative motion to dissolve the company is denied, as there is no authority presented permitting the Court to dissolve the corporation on noticed motion. The alternative motion to appoint a receiver is denied, as there is no authority permitting the receiver to wind down the corporation absent a judgment for dissolution of the corporation. The Court declines to set a bench trial on the remaining cause of action for dissolution of the corporation, as the Court finds any potential judgment on the cause of action could potentially conflict with the court of appeals’s ruling on the parties’ cross-appeals.

The ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to seek any available relief relating to the alleged fraudulent transactions pending appeal.

f. ORAP

The parties are reminded that there is an Application for Order for Appearance and Examination on calendar concurrently with the hearing on this motion.

DATED: September 29, 2020 _____________________________________

MARK C. KIM Judge of the Superior Court