Ree v. Chon CA2/8

Filed 2/25/16 Ree v. Chon CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

JIN REE, B262184

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC506778) v.

SUNG NAM CHON et al,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gregory W. Alarcon, Judge. Affirmed.

Jin Ree, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.

********

This is an appeal from two orders denying plaintiff and appellant Jin Ree relief from dismissal after plaintiff had obtained entry of default as to all defendants but failed to obtain any default judgment. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s order of September 16, 2014, denying his motion to vacate the dismissal of his complaint, and from the order of January 14, 2015, denying his motion for reconsideration. Finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the orders and judgment of dismissal. BACKGROUND The record on appeal appears to be incomplete but we discern the following factual and procedural background from the records before us. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on April 23, 2013, alleging eight causes of action against four defendants. The gist of the complaint is that the defendants, all of whom are members and past or former officers of the Seoul Lions Club, defamed plaintiff in relation to his views about the management and operation of the club. Plaintiff sought damages and an injunction to prevent them conducting any club business. Plaintiff did not specify the amount of damages he sought in the complaint, and there is no statement of damages in the record. As reflected in plaintiff’s motion to vacate dismissal and the court’s ruling, plaintiff obtained entry of default against all four defendants by August 12, 2013. Plaintiff attended the case management conference on September 24, 2013, at which time the court set a hearing on an order to show cause regarding dismissal for failure to obtain default judgment. On November 20, 2013, plaintiff filed a declaration requesting more time to negotiate settlements, and on November 25, 2013, in plaintiff’s presence, the court continued the hearing. On January 17, 2014, plaintiff filed a declaration giving excuses for his delay in providing default prove-up documents, including emotional distress from an unspecified personal matter, being busy, and lacking legal expertise. On January 24, 2014, the court admonished plaintiff that dismissal may result if a default judgment was not obtained. At the hearing on March 24, 2014 which plaintiff attended, the court ruled that plaintiff had not provided “any default prove-up documents or proof of having submitted them to the Court.” The court dismissed the action.