Monday, November 24, 2025
Page 1
Life-Term Inmate Denied Access to Courts by Dismissal of Suit Over Nonappearance—C.A.
Opinion Says Then-Judge Derek Hunt Wrongfully Torpedoed Action Against Lawyer Without Affording Opportunity to Explain Absence
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Former Orange Superior Court Judge Derek W. Hunt, who was known for arbitrariness and resigned from the bench in June 2023 with disciplinary proceedings against him pending, deprived an incarcerated man of access to the courts by dismissing his breach-of-contract action based on not appearing by remote access at trial, without ordering him to show cause why he failed to do so, the Court of Appeal has held.
The opinion, filed Thursday, was authored by Orange Superior Court Judge Julianne Sartain Bancroft, sitting on assignment to the Fourth District’s Div. Three.
Hunt on Dec. 5, 2022, dismissed a lawsuit brought by Jin Woo Park, who is incarcerated at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran State Prison, in Kings County. The action was scuttled after testimony was presented by defendant Michael L. Guisti, a lawyer whose office is in Orange County’s City of Garden Grove.
Guisti made note of Park’s imprisonment. He is serving a life sentence based on his conviction for torture, committed in 2012, with aggravating circumstances.
Hunt’s Minute Order
Hunt’s minute order says:
“Plaintiff Park had previously filed a Notice of Remote Appearance for this date. There was, however, no appearance by Plaintiff and no advance notice by him, either by motion, electronically, or by telephone, that he would be unable to appear or needed a continuance. The court had not been informed until this date that the plaintiff was incarcerated in state prison.”
In fact, the court had been so informed, Bancroft noted. She also pointed out that the minute order does not specify whether Guisti moved for a dismissal or if Hunt, impermissibly, ordered it sua sponte.
‘Prejudicial Error’
The dismissal, although without prejudice, “was prejudicial error” Bancroft wrote, explaining:
“[T]he dismissal deprived Park of meaningful access to the courts as an incarcerated plaintiff. Given Park’s multiple notifications to the trial court that he was incarcerated, the court abused its discretion by dismissing the case without ensuring Park had a meaningful opportunity to present his case in court. We therefore vacate the dismissal and remand the case. We publish this case as a reminder that the court system must ensure that all litigants have their day in court. When those litigants are incarcerated, additional burdens will be imposed on the courts, but they are burdens we must bear in the interest of justice.”
She added:
“The record also undercuts the trial court’s statement that it was unaware of Park’s incarceration until the day of trial. Aside from the nature of the lawsuit itself—a party would generally only seek a writ of habeas corpus if he was serving a custodial sentence—it was made clear to the court in numerous filings that Park was incarcerated. Park’s requests for remote appearance mentioned it. His fee waiver request reflected it. Guisti’s motion for judgment on the pleadings emphasized it. And if nothing else, the court was aware when Guisti gave his testimony at trial that Park was in prison. It dismissed the lawsuit anyway.”
Dismissal Statute
The jurist went on to comment:
“Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (b)(5), unquestionably gives the trial court the authority to dismiss a civil case if one party fails to appear and the other party requests dismissal. We do not by this opinion limit a trial court’s ability to control its courtroom and docket. But in the situation where a civil litigant is incarcerated, has obtained a fee waiver from the court as a result of indigency, has actively participated in the case, and has filed a notice of remote appearance for the trial, but nevertheless fails to appear that day, the trial court cannot dismiss the case without, at a minimum, first issuing an order to show cause.”
The case is Park v. Guisti, 2025 S.O.S. 3340.
Discipline of Hunt
Despite his resignation from office, the Commission on Judicial Performance on Aug 31, 2023, publicly admonished Hunt based on inappropriate behavior in three cases, including wisecracks. The commission recounted that he had received a public admonishment in July 2022, stemming from misconduct in four cases, and an advisory letter in 2009, commenting “that some of the misconduct here is substantially similar to that for which the judge has already been disciplined.”
Hunt’s in Park’s case was not mentioned in the 2023 order. However, the dereliction on the part of Guist underlying Park’s suit against him, as well as his wrongdoing in three other cases, did result in State Bar discipline—although of a relatively minor nature: a one-month suspension from practice.
The parties’ stipulation—which includes a recitation that Guisti accepted a $3,000 payment from Park to edit his state habeas corpus petition, but did no work, and refused to return the money—was approved by the California Supreme Court on Jan. 17, 2024.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company