The Law Offices of Danny Soong v. Aranda CA4/2 (2026) · DecisionDepot
The Law Offices of Danny Soong v. Aranda CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Mar 4, 2026 No. E083947Unpublished
Filed 3/4/26 The Law Offices of Danny Soong v. Aranda CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE LAW OFFICES OF DANNY SOONG, APC, E083947 Plaintiff, (Super.Ct.No. CIVSB2216528) v. OPINION MIGUEL ARANDA,
Defendant and Appellant;
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INJURY TREATMENT CENTER,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Khymberli S.Y.
Apaloo, Judge. Affirmed.
No appearance for Plaintiff.
Miguel Aranda, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Nesbit Law Group US and Alan Nesbit for Defendant and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Miguel Aranda files this appeal in regard to an
interpleader action. Aranda was involved in a hit and run accident, and hired plaintiff
Danny Soong of The Law Office of Danny Soong, APC (Soong), to represent him in an
action against State Farm Insurance Company. During the case, Aranda was seen by
defendant and respondent Southern California Injury Treatment Center (Center) and
incurred bills totaling $36,850. Soong was able to settle the case with State Farm
Insurance Company for $45,000. From that amount, Soong took his fees and negotiated
Aranda contends he was never served with the notice that the trial had been
continued to January 11, 2024. He insists there is a dispute as to whether he received
notice based on the register of actions stating only Soong and counsel for Center being
served by the clerk of the superior court. Based on the augmented record provided by
Center, the clerk of the superior court sent him notice by mail to his Arizona address that
the matter was continued to January 11, 2024, which was more than 20 days prior to the
continued trial date. The proof of service, executed under penalty of perjury, is clear
evidence that Aranda was served prior to the continuance in accordance with Code of
Civil Procedure section 594. While the register of actions only shows that Soong and
counsel for Center were mailed the notice, the proof of service confirms it was also
mailed to Aranda and controls. Moreover, the trial court confirmed at the hearing that the
8
clerk of the court sent the minute order reflecting the continuance to Aranda. The record
clearly supports that Aranda was served with the notice of the continuance and failed to
appear at the time of trial. The trial court properly proceeded to trial in his absence.
B. CONTINUANCE
Aranda insists the trial court erred by denying the oral request made by Soong to
continue the trial date.
“Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring
a continuance. [Citations.] Reviewing courts must uphold a trial court’s choice not to
grant a continuance unless the court has abused its discretion in so doing.” (In re
Marriage of Falcone (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.) A “defendant is not entitled to
have his case presented in court both by himself and by counsel acting at the same time
or alternating at defendant’s pleasure.” (People v. Aguirre (1960) 181 Cal.App.2d 577,
582, italics omitted.)
Aranda was not present in court on January 11, 2024, the date for trial. Soong was
present but advised the trial court he was no longer representing Aranda. Soong asked
that the trial be continued on behalf of Aranda despite not representing him. The trial
court could properly deny Soong’s request to continue the trial on Aranda’s behalf as
Aranda had chosen to proceed in pro. per. and could not have counsel argue the request
on his behalf.
Aranda insists he did not have enough time to submit a motion for a continuance
on his own between December 19, 2023, until January 11, 2024. This issue has been
forfeited based on Aranda failing to provide any legal authority to support this claim.
9
(United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC, (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 146.)
Further, it lacks merit as a motion for a continuance could have been brought any time
that is “reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 (b).) Even if this court were to accept the statement by
Aranda made in the reply brief that he did not have knowledge of the continued trial until
one or two days prior to trial, he could have made a request for a continuance prior to the
trial date. He failed to file such request. The trial court properly denied the request made
by Soong to continue the trial.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order is affirmed. As the prevailing party, respondent is awarded
costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON J.
1 Center makes a statement that the costs should be paid by Soong as he was “running this appeal for Appellant.” We reject such conclusory statement and order costs paid by Aranda.
10
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance or proceeding to trial in the defendant's absence, as the defendant received proper notice of the trial date and failed to establish good cause for a delay.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in proceeding to trial after the defendant failed to appear despite receiving notice of the continued trial date.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a request for a continuance made by an attorney who no longer represented the self-represented defendant.
Disposition. affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The proof of service, executed under penalty of perjury, is clear evidence that Aranda was served prior to the continuance in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 594.”
“The trial court could properly deny Soong’s request to continue the trial on Aranda’s behalf as Aranda had chosen to proceed in pro. per. and could not have counsel argue the request on his behalf.”