The Law Offices of Danny Soong v. Aranda CA4/2

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: March 4, 2026
• Docket: E083947
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

with other medical providers to pay them for the services provided to Aranda at a reduced

cost. After these payments, the settlement funds remaining totaled $23,427.50. Soong

tried to settle with Center for an amount less than what was owed by Aranda. Center

declined and Soong filed an interpleader action to obtain a determination as to the proper

distribution of the remaining settlement funds. Trial was set for December 19, 2023, but

was continued due to the trial court’s unavailability. On the continued trial date, Aranda

was not present. Soong, which was present but was no longer representing Aranda,

requested a continuance on behalf of Aranda. The trial court refused the continuance

and, after hearing evidence and argument, found in favor of Center in the amount of

$23,427.50.

Aranda claims on appeal that he was never served with the notice that the trial was

continued from the December 19, 2023, date. He further contends the trial court erred

and violated his rights to due process by denying Soong’s request made on his behalf to

continue the trial date and that the parties would not have been prejudiced by a short

continuance.

2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. INTERPLEADER ACTION

On August 2, 2022, Soong filed a complaint for interpleader (complaint) naming

Aranda and Center as defendants. According to the complaint, on October 3, 2016,

Aranda was driving his car when he was sideswiped by another car that then left the

scene. Aranda retained Soong to represent him in an uninsured motorist claim against his

insurance company, State Farm Insurance Company. Aranda received chiropractic care

and underwent MRI scans at several separate facilities. He was sent to Center for pain

management treatments. The total bills from Center for his treatment were $36,850.

Soong reached a settlement agreement with State Farm Insurance Company in the

amount of $45,000. Soong reached agreements for payment for his chiropractic care and

MRI scans, and paid these facilities a total of $4,500 from the settlement funds. Soong

took his attorney fees and other fees totaling $17,172.50. Soong made several offers to

Center for payment for less than the $36,850 but Center refused the offers. Soong sought

a determination by the trial court as to the distribution of the remaining $23,427.50 of

settlement funds.

Center filed an answer to the complaint on April 4, 2023. Center contended that it

was entitled to the full amount of $36,850 plus interest for the medical care provided to

Aranda. Center provided a copy of a doctor’s lien and release of medical documents

signed by Aranda. It included language that authorized Soong to pay Center directly any

settlement funds for medical care received by Soong in relation to his personal injury

case. It also included language that, “I understand that I am directly responsible for the

3 said medicals and for all medical bills incurred for services dated 10/4/16 to 10/4/18

regardless of the outcome of the case.” Center also attached the bills for medical care

provided.

On December 14, 2023, Aranda filed an answer. He alleged that he was entitled to

the full judgment. He alleged as defenses that some of the defendants acted in bad faith

by charging too much and that the medical companies understood they may have to take

less than charged.

The matter was called for trial on December 19, 2023. Soong and counsel for

Center were present. Aranda was not present. The matter was continued to January 11,

2024, due to the trial court being unavailable to conduct the trial. The superior court

clerk served Aranda with the minute order reflecting the continuance date of the trial at

his address in Arizona.

B. TRIAL

The matter was called for trial on January 11, 2024. Soong and counsel for Center

were present. Aranda was not present. Soong represented to the trial court that Aranda

worked in Arizona and was unable to make the trial date. He stated, “So he’s requested

that the trial be continued on a day that he can appear.” The trial court responded, “No.

I’ve already continued this and we made a day and today was the day that we had to all

turn ourselves into a pretzel.” Soong responded that the trial court had unilaterally

continued the trial date without input from Aranda, who was not present at the hearing on

December 19, 2023, when the matter was continued.

4 The trial court then discussed that the matter had been continued already and that

all defendants were to serve answers by December 14, 2023, which the trial court noted

had occurred. Counsel for Center stated it had not been served with the answer filed by

Aranda. The trial court asked why Center had not been served. Soong responded, “Yeah

that’s—that’s Mr. Aranda—Mr. Aranda is representing himself in pro per.” The trial

court asked, “So then how can you ask for a continuance on his behalf if he’s self

represented?” Soong responded, “. . . he’s still a former client of mine.” The trial court

stated that he had no right to represent Aranda and Soong confirmed he was not

representing Aranda.

The trial court stated, “He filed in pro per and he’s not here today. On his own

trial date, he did nothing to ask for a continuance of today’s hearing . . . he did none of

that.” The trial court believed that Soong had no interest in the matter; the dispute was

between Aranda and Center. Soong stated that he had an interest in that “technically” he

is still my client. Counsel for Center stated that Soong now had a conflict of interest.

Soong stated, “. . . my office represented him on the Miguel Aranda versus State Farm

matter, and these are proceeds that were obtained as part of that settlement.” Soong

insisted that he had an interest in helping Aranda as a former client. He stated that

although he was not representing Aranda, he was “relaying” to the trial court Aranda’s

availability and Aranda’s request to continue the trial date so he could be present.

The trial court noted that Soong had filed the interpleader action to determine who

should be given the settlement funds. Once that was done, it was a dispute between

Center and Aranda. The trial court did not believe that Soong could cross-examine any

5 witnesses. Soong stated that this made it even more compelling that the matter be

continued so Aranda could be present.

The trial court noted that notice of the continuance had been given by the court to

Aranda and confirmed with court staff that service had been performed on Aranda. Since

Aranda had been given notice, the trial court intended to proceed and denied the

Center asked that the answer filed by Aranda be stricken, which was denied by the

trial court. Center then argued its case that it was the sole lienholder and the money

should be distributed to it for the medical care provided to Aranda. Soong was allowed

to argue that it would not be equitable to distribute the entire remaining settlement funds

to Center. Aranda was the person hurt and deserved the compensation. Center provided

the testimony of Dr. Isaac Riveroy. Riveroy managed Center. Aranda signed a

document that stated he understood he was responsible for the medical bills incurred by

him at Center regardless of the outcome of the case. Center argued that it was entitled to

the full amount of its medical bills and that the trial court should award it the remaining

$23,427.50 settlement funds.

The trial court then reviewed the answer filed by Aranda. Aranda had only

alleged that he was a resident of Arizona, that he was in an accident and that he retained

an attorney. He made no other claim as to how he was entitled to the settlement money.

The trial court also noted that Aranda never served the answer on Center. After hearing

argument, the trial court took the matter under submission.

6 The trial court filed its ruling on January 30, 2024. The trial court recounted the

facts and that only Aranda and Center had filed answers in the interpleader action.

Aranda’s answer was not timely filed and he never served Soong or Center. Further, in

the answer, Aranda only admitted that he had an accident and that he was represented by

Soong. He set forth no facts as to why he may be entitled to the settlement funds. As for

the denial of the continuance, Aranda had known about the date of the trial for one month

and never requested a continuance. The request for a continuance came on the date of

trial by Soong, who no longer represented Aranda.

The trial court concluded that based on Aranda not serving his answer on Center,

the fact that the answer pleaded no factual basis to support that he was entitled to the

settlement funds, and based on the uncontroverted evidence that Center treated Aranda

and had not been paid, Center was entitled to the entirety of the remaining settlement

funds.

The judgment was filed on March 13, 2024. Center was awarded $23,427.50.

Aranda filed his notice of appeal on April 12, 2024.

DISCUSSION

Aranda claims on appeal that he was never served with the notice that the trial was

continued to January 11, 2024. He further contends the trial court erred and violated his

rights to due process by denying Soong’s request made on his behalf to continue the trial

date.

7 A. SERVICE

“In superior courts either party may bring an issue to trial . . . in the absence of the

adverse party . . . ; provided, however, if the issue to be tried is an issue of fact, proof

shall first be made to the satisfaction of the court that the adverse party has had 15 days’

notice of such trial . . . as specified in subdivision (b).” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 594, subd.

(a).) “The notice to the adverse party required by subdivision (a) shall be served by mail

on all the parties by the clerk of the court not less than 20 days prior to the date set for

trial.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 594, subd. (b).) “ ‘Where the defendant who has answered

fails to appear for trial “the plaintiff’s sole remedy is to move the court to proceed with

the trial and introduce whatever testimony there may be to sustain the plaintiff’s cause of

action.” ’ ” (Heidary v. Yadollahi (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 857, 863.)

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.