Deng v. Gogal Law Office CA4/1

── Deng v. Gogal Law Office CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 Deng v. Gogal Law Office CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA XINHUI DENG et al., D086588 Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. (Super. Ct. No. 24CU026778N) GOGAL LAW OFFICE, PC et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Cynthia A. Freeland, Judge. Motion for judicial notice denied as moot. Affirmed. Xinhui Deng, in pro. per., and Jianhua Wu, in pro per., for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Gogal Law Office, Michael Gogal, Bonsall, for Defendant and Respondent Gogal Law Office. Orick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Julie A. Totten and Scott Morrison, for Defendant and Respondent GenMark Diagnostics, Inc.  Plaintiffs Xinhui Deng and Jianhua Wu (Landlords) were involved in a protracted landlord-tenant dispute with defendants Michael and Hildy Baumgartner-Gogal (Tenants). After Tenants prevailed on their retaliatory eviction claim, Landlords responded by suing Michael Gogal’s law firm—who represented Tenants—and GenMark Diagnostics, Inc.—a former employer of Deng that Tenants subpoenaed for documents—alleging various acts of misconduct during the earlier litigation. The claims asserted by Landlords included the torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress against the law firm and invasion of privacy against the company. In sustaining the law firm’s demurrer and the company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, both without leave to amend, the court held that the litigation privilege barred Landlords’ tort claims and that the rest of their causes of action— all asserted against the law firm—were defective for other reasons. Landlords appeal the trial court’s application of the litigation privilege and decision to deny leave to amend. We find no error in these rulings. The allegedly wrongful acts about which Landlords complain fall within the ambit of the litigation privilege. And the trial court appropriately withheld leave to amend because Landlords bear the burden of showing how they could amend their complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in the demurrer. Here, the revisions to the complaint proposed by Landlords would not state any viable claims. Accordingly, the judgments are affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND After Tenants prevailed in their retaliatory eviction lawsuit, we resolved appeals of two postjudgment orders entered in that case. (Gogal v. Deng (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1161 (Gogal I); Gogal v. Deng (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1193, review granted July 22, 2025, S292779 (Gogal II).) 2 Michael Gogal’s solo legal practice, Gogal Law Office (Gogal Law or the firm), represented Tenants at all relevant times. While Gogal I and II were pending, Landlords sued Gogal Law and GenMark Diagnostics, Inc. (GenMark) for alleged misconduct committed in connection with the first action. Landlords asserted against Gogal Law causes of action for (1) violations of Business and Professions Code section 6068—“Duties of Attorney”—and the rules of professional conduct; (2) failure to obtain a business license while operating out of the house that Tenants rented from Landlords; (3) “abuse of process and retaliation”; (4) “obstruction of justice and misconduct”; and (5) the tort of intentional infliction of emotional di