Su v. AHMC San Gabriel Valley Medical Center CA2/1

Filed 9/22/25 Su v. AHMC San Gabriel Valley Medical Center CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

HUI SU et al., B335825

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22STCV06760) v.

AHMC SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, LP, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael C. Small, Judge. Affirmed. Tamer Law Corp. and Steven Michael Tamer for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Cole Pedroza LLP, Kenneth R. Pedroza, Alysia B. Carroll; Reback, McAndrews & Blessey, Raymond L. Blessey and Tracy D. Hughes for Defendant and Respondent AHMC San Gabriel Valley Medical Center, LP.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Jeffry A. Miller, Daniel R. Velladao and Judith M. Tishkoff for Defendant and Respondent Tag 2 Medical Investment Group LLC.

______________________________

We decide this appeal by memorandum disposition.1 (See Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) Declared vexatious litigants Hui Su and Wei Su (the Su appellants2) ask us to reverse the trial court’s December 7, 2023 order prohibiting them from (1) filing any further law and motion in the action giving rise to this appeal without prior approval, and (2) filing any new litigation in a California court without first obtaining leave of that court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure3 section 391.7. (See § 391.7.) The Su appellants contend such prefiling restrictions may be imposed only on declared vexatious litigants, and that the court erred by designating them vexatious litigants in a prior, July 18, 2022 order. We previously rejected a virtually identical challenge by the Su appellants to their designation as vexatious litigants. (See Su et al. v. AHMC San Gabriel Valley Medical Center, LP, et al.