This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 06/23/2022 at 18:05:15 (UTC).

Park v. The Superior Court of Orange County

Case Summary

On 05/20/2022 Park filed an Other lawsuit against The Superior Court of Orange County. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District - Division 3 located in Statewide, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets


Case Details

  • Case Number:


  • Filing Date:


  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:


  • County, State:

    Statewide, California


Party Details


Jin Woo Park

Corcoran, CA 93212


The Superior Court of Orange County

700 Civic Center Dr West

Santa Ana, CA 92701

Interested Party

Michael A. Guisti

Garden Grove, CA 92843

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.


Docket Entries

  • 05/26/2022
  • DispositionDescription: Petition summarily denied by order; Disposition Type: Final

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2022
  • DocketDescription: Record shipped to records center; Notes: All documents scanned. No paper copies.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2022
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2022
  • DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: THE COURT:* On May 20, 2022, Jin Woo Park filed a "motion for order" in this court, requesting that we order the superior court to "respond to" Park's "requests" filed in the superior court. The motion was accompanied by several attachments, which Park represents were filed in the superior court. It appears that Park (who currently resides in prison and is representing himself) is seeking extraordinary relief from interim orders (or lack of orders) of the superior court. We therefore treat Park's "motion" as a petition for writ of mandate. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.485-8.486.) For the reasons set forth below, the petition is DENIED. On the court's own motion, we take judicial notice of the record in the superior court action. On June 25, 2021, Park filed a complaint against defendant Michael A. Guisti (real party in interest in this proceeding). Park alleges Guisti is a lawyer who breached a written contract to prepare and file a petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Park. On October 26, 2021, proof of service of summons on Guisti was filed. On November 29, 2021, Guisti filed an answer to the complaint. That same day, the trial court held a case management conference and scheduled a jury trial for December 5, 2022. On January 12, 2022, Park filed a "notice and request of ruling." Park claimed in this document that he had previously served and filed a request for entry of default, mailed to the court on November 19, 2021. However, no such filing appears on the superior court docket. On April 1, 2022, Park filed a document entitled "docket sheet," by which Park requested that the clerk of the court supply him with a "current docket sheet" for the case. No trial court orders have issued in response to the documents filed by Park. In sum, it appears from our review of the record and the documents filed by Park in this court that Park believes respondent court should enter the default of Guisti and proceed to default judgment proceedings. It appears that Park may be unaware that Guisti filed an answer on November 29, 2021. The clerk of this court is DIRECTED to attach a copy of the docket from the superior court action and a copy of Guisti's answer to this order. This addresses some of petitioner's requests that he contends are being ignored by respondent court. To the extent Park contends that respondent court erred by failing to enter the default of Guisti, the petition is untimely (filed six months after the answer was filed) and procedurally insufficient (that is, Park's petition lacks a sufficient record, sufficient factual allegations, sufficient legal argument, or sufficient compliance with technical requirements in rule 8.486 to serve as a valid writ petition). Moreover, even if a procedurally sufficient writ petition had been filed and even if it is assumed default should have been entered prior to the filing of the answer, Park is not harmed in a way that supports writ relief. Default judgments are disfavored under California law and relief from entry of default is liberally granted. Trial on the merits of disputes is favored and respondent court has set a trial date in this action. A slight delay in the filing of an answer following proof of service of summons does not entitle a plaintiff to default judgment. O'LEARY, P. J. * Before O'Leary, P. J., Sanchez, J., and Marks, J.** **Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.Copy of order and RA and Guisti's answer filed with Superior Court on 11/29/21 mailed to petitioner.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Writ of Mandate Petitioner: Jin Woo Park

    Read MoreRead Less

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases

Latest cases where The Superior Court of Orange County is a litigant