Huang v. Shih, et al.

The fact no opposition has been filed does not relieve the judge from the duty to draw all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence before the court. (Maxwell v. Colburn (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 180, 185.) If defendants fail to meet the burden, their motion must be denied; plaintiff need not make any showing at all. (Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 468.)

Defendants’ Undisputed Material Facts In support of their Motion, Defendants submit five undisputed material facts (UMFs). Plaintiff filed her Complaint on September 28, 2023, against the Defendants alleging one cause of action for dental malpractice. (UMF #1). Plaintiff claims that, after the initial consultation,

Defendants recommended “a ceramic patch” and other dental procedures. Those procedures were performed in July 2021. Thereafter, plaintiff had continued pain in her mouth. She claims that Shih failed to perform the dental procedures within the standard of care. As a result, she claims that she has lost earnings, and that subsequent medical/dental treatment has been necessitated. (UMF #2).

On July 22, 2025, Defendants’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions against Plaintiff or, alternatively, request for issue sanctions and evidence sanctions as well as, monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, was heard. (UMF #4). At that time, the Court adopted its tentative ruling and ruled as follows, 1. Defendants RICHARD J. SHIH, D.D.S. and RICHARD J. SHIH, D.D.S., INC.’s Motion for Issue, Evidence and Monetary Sanctions is hereby GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff is hereby PRECLUDED from presenting any argument or evidence for personal injuries in this action including medical records; 3. Plaintiff is hereby PRECLUDED from presenting any argument or evidence for loss of wages or loss of earning in this action; and Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, Sergio A. Castaneda, Esq. and Edward C. Yim, Esq. with CASTANEDA LAW, jointly and severely, are further ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,485.00 by way of check to BEHAR | GIBBS | SAVAGE | PAULSON LLP within 30 days of July 22, 2025. (UMF #5).

Cause of Action for Professional Negligence Defendants primary argument is that Defendants have met their burden of showing that Plaintiff’s claim has no merit as there is no evidence of Plaintiff’s injuries, losses or damages. It is an undisputed material fact that Plaintiff is precluded from presenting any argument or evidence for personal injuries or lost wages in this action. As such, Defendants contend Plaintiff cannot prove causation or damage, which are requisite elements of her sole cause of action for professional negligence. Additionally, in their Reply, Defendants argue Plaintiff failed to file and serve a separate statement in opposition to Defendants’ Motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, which is grounds to grant Defendants’ motion as set forth in section 437c, subdivision (b)(3).

There are no triable issues of fact and Defendants met their burden to show there is no evidence to support Plaintiff’s claim that she suffered any actual loss or damage due to Defendants’ negligence. It is an undisputed fact that on July 22, 2025, the court ruled that Plaintiff is precluded from presenting any argument or evidence for personal injuries in this action including medical records or evidence for loss of wages or loss of earning in this action. (UMFs #4-5). Accordingly, Defendants met their burden of proof of demonstrating no triable issue as to any actual loss or damage resulting from Defendants’ professional's negligence. The burden then shifts to the Plaintiff to produce admissible evidence showing a triable issue of material facts exists. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, and thus has failed to meet the shifted burden. Therefore, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.

Dated: April 27, 2026

____________________________ Judge Kory Mathewson

2