Filed 3/22/23 Zarum v. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

LORIE ANNE GUNDERSON 

ZARUM,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 

PRESBYTERIAN et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

B307854

(Los Angeles County 

Super. Ct. No. BC672741)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Dennis Landin, Judge. Dismissed.

Lorie Anne Gunderson Zarum, in pro. per., Plaintiff and 

Appellant.

Doyle, Schafer McMahon, Daniel W. Doyle and Terrence J. 

Schafer for Defendants and Respondents.

__________________________
2

Plaintiff and appellant Lorie Anne (Gunderson) Zarum 

appeals from the denial of a postjudgment motion in a medical 

malpractice action she filed against defendants and respondents 

Hoag Memorial Hospital and Dr. Andrea Nanci. As we conclude 

the order appealed from is a nonappealable order denying a 

motion for reconsideration, we dismiss the appeal.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Zarum’s father died in July 2011. Zarum believes that 

defendants’ medical malpractice caused and/or hastened her 

father’s death. Specifically, she alleges that Dr. Nanci performed 

an unnecessary liver needle biopsy on her father against his 

wishes, resulting in the spread of his cancer.

1. Original Malpractice Action 

In June 2013, Zarum initially filed suit, in Orange County, 

against the hospital and Dr. Nanci. (Zarum v. Hoag Hospital

(Super. Ct. Orange County, 2013, No. 30-2013 00657603).) In 

August 2014, Defendants obtained summary judgment on the 

basis of the statute of limitations. On appeal, the Fourth 

Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed. (Zarum v. Hoag 

Memorial Hospital (Aug. 22, 2016, G050952) [nonpub. opn.].)1

2. Current Action

On August 16, 2017, Zarum filed the current action in Los 

Angeles Superior Court, on behalf of herself and her father’s 

estate, against the same defendants. Defendants demurred on 

statute of limitation and res judicata grounds. On December 15, 

1 Zarum did not timely seek California Supreme Court 

review. In the Court of Appeal, she unsuccessfully moved to 

recall the remittitur; then sought California Supreme Court 

review of the denial of her motion to recall the remittitur. This,

too, was denied. 
3

2017, the court sustained the demurrers, without leave to amend, 

based on the statute of limitations. Judgment of dismissal was 

entered on January 18, 2018. 

Zarum brought numerous challenges to the judgment, both 

by notices of appeal and by postjudgment motions. When her 

postjudgment motions were unsuccessful, she attempted to 

appeal those denials as well. We provide an overview of the 

chronology, ending with the current appeal.

A. B290070 – Appeal Dismissed from Judgment 

and Four Postjudgment Orders

On May 15, 2018, Zarum filed a notice of appeal purporting 

to appeal from: (a) the January 18, 2018 judgment; (b) the 

January 30, 2018 denial of a motion for new trial; (c) the 

February 28, 2018 denial of a motion to accept late-filed evidence; 

(d) the March 12, 2018 denial of a motion to set aside the 

judgment; and (e) the May 15, 2018 denial of reconsideration of 

the denial of the motion to set aside.

On February 20, 2019, we dismissed Zarum’s appeal from 

the judgment as untimely. On April 3, 2019, we dismissed the 

other four appeals as taken from nonappealable orders. After the 

California Supreme Court denied review, our remittitur issued on 

June 20, 2019.

On November 18, 2019, Zarum petitioned the U.S. Supreme 

Court for certiorari, challenging not only the dismissal of her 

appeals, but also the underlying rulings of both the Orange 

County and Los Angeles Superior Courts.

2 The U.S. Supreme 

Court denied certiorari on January 27, 2020. 

2 Zarum’s certiorari petition is attached to her request for 

judicial notice. We grant the request in its entirety.
4

B. B304997 – Appeal Dismissed from Amended 

Judgment

Following the June 20, 2019 remittitur, Dr. Nanci obtained 

an amended judgment awarding her costs. The amended 

judgment issued on January 3, 2020. 

Zarum filed two more notices of appeal, purporting to 

appeal (on behalf of herself and the estate) from the amended 

judgment. We dismissed the estate’s appeal on February 8, 2021,

and Zarum’s appeal on November 4, 2021, for procedural 

defaults. 

C. B307854 – the Current Appeal

On March 5, 2020, Zarum filed one final postjudgment 

motion. It was captioned, in full: “(‘RENEWED MOTION’ AS 

SUPPLEMENT TO THE APPELLATE RECORD) OF 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO 

SET ASIDE AND/OR VACATE DISMISSAL[S]

THROUGHOUT THE CASE DOCTRINE” BASED ON THE 

PRINCIPLE OF “NEW LAW” AS EXTRINSIC FRAUD AND 

DECEIT PERPETRATED ON; LORIE ANNE GUNDERSON 

ZARUM, AND THE ESTATE OF THEODORE LEE

GUNDERSON: THEREBY QUALIFYING AS “RENEWED 

MOTION” [UNDER CCP SEC. 1008 (b)] OF PLAINTIFF’S 

PREVIOUSLY FILED MOTIONS FROM AUGUST 16, 2017 

UNTIL PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 11/18/2019.” 

(Brackets in original.) We note that August 16, 2017, referenced 

in the caption, is the date of the complaint in this action; Zarum 

was apparently attempting to renew all motions she had 

previously filed in this case, up to her petition for certiorari.
5

On September 16, 2020, the court denied the motion, 

characterizing it as a “Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal.”

3

According to the hospital’s notice of ruling, the court denied the 

motion because it had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The court’s 

minute order indicates the court admonished Zarum “not to file 

any more motions regarding these same issues and warn[ed] that 

she may be subject to monetary sanctions in the future if she does 

so.” 

On September 25, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal 

from this order. That is the only appeal before us.4 

DISCUSSION

The only order on appeal is the September 16, 2020 denial 

of Zarum’s March 5, 2020 “renewed” motion to set aside. It is not 

entirely clear whether Zarum’s March 5, 2020 motion should be 

considered a reconsideration/renewed motion under Code of Civil 

Procedure section 1008 or a motion to set aside under section 

473.5 We conclude it is the former, the denial of which is not 

3 The court’s exact words were: “The Motion to Set 

Aside/Vacate Dismissal filed by Lori Anne Gunderson Zarum on 

03/05/020 is Denied.”

4 Plaintiff filed four notices of appeal from this order (two on 

behalf of the estate and two on behalf of herself). On January 22, 

2021, we dismissed two of them as duplicative; on January 12, 

2022, we dismissed the estate’s appeal for procedural default. 

What remains is the appeal labeled “X2” – Zarum’s (personal) 

appeal of the order. 

5 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil 

Procedure.
6

appealable. However, even if we consider it as a motion to set 

aside, we would affirm the court’s order.

1. Reconsideration/Renewed Motion

Section 1008, subdivision (a) provides for motions for 

reconsideration. Subdivision (b) governs the related practice of 

renewed motions. A motion for reconsideration requests the 

court to “reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the 

prior order,” based “upon new or different facts, circumstances, or 

law . . . .” (§ 1008, subd. (a).) A renewed motion is also based 

“upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law,” but is made 

by a party whose initial application for an order was denied, and 

is seeking the same order previously sought. (§ 1008, subd. (b).)

Zarum, in the caption of the motion itself, expressly 

characterized the motion as a renewed motion under section 

1008. In her papers filed with the trial court, she argued that 

there was “new law” which required setting aside the dismissals 

in this case and the original Orange County matter.6 This is the 

essence of a motion for reconsideration or renewed motion.

7

Neither the denial of a motion for reconsideration nor the 

denial of a renewed motion is an appealable order. (§ 1008, 

subd. (g); Global Protein Products, Inc. v. Le (2019) 

42 Cal.App.5th 352, 363-364.) We therefore dismiss the appeal 

as having been taken from a nonappealable order.

6 The motion was not based on new law, but, rather, law that 

Zarum had recently discovered. As she explained in her reply, 

“[t]he new law . . . is actually very old law . . . .” 

7 In part, the motion sought to reconsider the prior 

dismissals (§ 1008, subd. (a)); and in part, it sought to renew her 

previous postjudgment motions (§ 1008, subd. (b)).
7

2. Motion to Set Aside

Even if we were to accept the trial court’s characterization 

of Zarum’s motion as a motion to set aside under section 473, it 

would not assist Zarum.8 A statutory motion for relief “shall be 

made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, 

after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” 

(§ 473, subd. (b).) Zarum’s motion sought to set aside the 

dismissals in this case and the Orange County case. Those 

judgments occurred years earlier (in 2018 and 2014, 

respectively). A 2020 motion to set them aside would have been 

untimely.

The caption of Zarum’s motion suggests she sought to set 

aside every ruling in the case from the date of her complaint to 

the date of her petition for certiorari, November 18, 2019. As her 

motion was filed on March 5, 2020, it could have been timely only

as to orders filed after September 5, 2019 (six months before 

March 5, 2020). But there were no trial court orders between 

September 5, 2019, and November 18, 2019 (the date identified in 

the caption as the end of the motions she sought to renew). If 

Zarum’s motion were a motion to set aside, it was necessarily 

untimely, and we would affirm the order on that basis.9

8 Zarum’s motion cited section 473. 

9 To the extent Zarum seeks a writ of coram vobis, we decline 

to treat her appeal as a writ petition. We also reject her request, 

at this late hour, for leave to amend. 
8

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. Zarum is to pay defendants’ costs 

on appeal.

RUBIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BAKER, J.

KIM, J.