An

Lee v. An

Bad Law
168 Cal. App. 4th 558·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 2270·85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 620
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 19, 2008B202186California2,609 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

Ji Hae An appeals from an order denying her motion to vacate a default judgment. She claims she was not given notice that the court would consider imposing terminating sanctions against her for failure to appear at a case management conference. Absent the requisite notice, she claims the court had no jurisdiction to strike her answer and enter her default. For this reason, she claims the judgment was void and subject to being set aside at any time pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d). We conclude that the judgment was voidable, not void, and thus appellant’s motion to set aside was untimely. For this reason, we affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

In May 2003, attorney Thomas Min Lee and Lee Law Offices (respondents) brought this action against Ung Ed An and Ji Hae An. The complaint alleged that the Ans, illegally and without respondents’ knowledge, practiced law without a license and falsely conducted a law practice under the name Lee Law Offices. Ung Ki An filed for bankruptcy protection, and he was later dismissed from the action. He is not a party to this appeal. Appellant Ji Hae An, appearing in propria persona, filed an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.