Ho v. Nguyen CA4/3

Filed 10/28/14 Ho v. Nguyen CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

CHRISTY HO et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents, G049469

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00524081)

KIM HUONG NGUYEN et al., OPINION

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard Luesebrink, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. David Tang for Defendants and Appellants. Mark S. Rosen and Dina L. Nguyen for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

* * *

Defendants and appellants Kim Huong Nguyen, Kim Ann Nguyen and Chuong Van Nguyen (defendants) appeal from an order granting a new trial, following a court trial. Defendants contend the court erred in granting a new trial on the grounds of irregularity in the proceedings. We disagree and affirm. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs and respondents Christy Ho and Johnny Ho (plaintiffs) sued defendants and others in a dispute arising out of the ownership and operation of a nail salon. Their second amended complaint contained a cause of action for breach of partnership agreement, and six other causes of action. On defendant’s motion, the trial was trifurcated. Phase I was to determine whether an oral partnership existed and, if so, what its duration and terms were. Phase II was to determine all other liability and compensatory damage issues. Phase III was to determine punitive damages, if the prerequisite findings were made in Phase II. At the end of Phase I on August 9, 2013, the court found for defendants on the breach of partnership agreement cause of action, “for reasons as set forth on the record.” Plaintiffs requested a statement of decision and the court directed the prevailing party to prepare one “after trial on all issues are resolved.” Plaintiffs’ counsel then gave an opening statement for Phase II, and the trial was adjourned for the day. We are not certain exactly what happened next and why, because we have only been provided limited excerpts from the reporter’s transcripts. According to the minute orders provided, on August 12, the date set for the Phase II trial to resume, plaintiffs’ counsel, Toby Tran, advised there had been a communication breakdown with his clients, and they had retained new counsel, Dina Nguyen. Attorney Tran requested that he be relieved as counsel for plaintiffs. Attorney Nguyen sought to specially appear on behalf of plaintiffs, for the limited purpose of presenting an ex parte application to continue the trial of Phase II, and to set aside the rulings and orders entered during the trial of Phase I.