JORGE IBARRA v. EAST LOS ANGELES DOCTORS HOSPITAL

Moreover, "'a request for declaratory relief will not create a cause of action that otherwise does not exist.'" ((City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 80.) "Rather, 'an actual, present controversy must be pleaded specifically' and 'the facts of the respective claims concerning the [underlying] subject must be given.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)

Given the Court's statute of limitations analysis, there are no underlying, viable causes of action that the civil conspiracy and declaratory relief causes of action could be anchored to. Thus, Plaintiff cannot state a viable cause of action for civil conspiracy or declaratory relief against the Yoo Defendants. Accordingly, the demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action are sustained, without leave to amend.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court declines to address the arguments Hanmi or the Yoo Defendants made regarding Plaintiff's failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

C onclusion

Based on the foregoing, Hanmi's demurrer as to the first, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend. The Yoo Defendants' demurrer as to the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend. [2]

Hanmi and the Yoo Defendants are each ordered to file and serve a proposed judgment of dismissal within 10 days of the date of this Order. Hanmi is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED: August 19, 2026 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

[1] This cause of action is alleged against Moon and Dong only.

[2] Although Plaintiff requests leave to amend, Plaintiff does not indicate any proposed basis for such amendment.

Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 508 JORGE IBARRA, Plaintiff,

vs. EAST LOS ANGELES DOCTORS HOSPITAL, Defendant. | Case No.: |

| Hearing Date: | August 19, 2026 | Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: APPLICATION OF DANIEL J. COHEN TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE |

Daniel J. Cohen applies for an order granting permission to appear pro hac vice in the instant action on behalf of Plaintiff Jorge Ibarra. The Court notes multiple defects with the application.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(1), "[t]he application must state: (1)¿The applicant's residence and office address." Mr. Choen provides his residential address but does not provide his office address.

The application must also state "[t]he courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.4(d)(2).) Mr. Cohen does not provide the dates of admission.

Additionally, to be eligible for pro hac vice admission, an individual must not be "(1) A resident of the State of California; (2) Regularly employed in the State of California; or (3) Regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).) Although Mr. Cohen attests that he is not a resident of Missouri, he does not explain that he is not regularly employed or engaged in substantial business or other activities in California.

Furthermore, "[a] person desiring to appear as counsel pro hac vice in a superior court must file with the court a verified application together with proof of service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a of a copy of the application and of the notice of hearing of the application on all parties who have appeared in the cause and on the State Bar at its San Francisco office." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1).) Here, proof of service demonstrates that Defendant and the State Bar were only served electronically. Mr. Cohen must file proof of service by mail.

Based on the foregoing, the application is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this Order.

DATED: August 19, 2026 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court | Home -->)" -->