On Sept. 10, 2005, plaintiff Yang Yu, 19, presented to the Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center in San Gabriel Yu and met with Phyllis Lu and Maggie Jiang, both of who were wearing white lab coats. Lu subsequently examined Yu and said she was a perfect candidate for enhancement surgery on the bridge of the nose. Lu also said she could arrange an appointment with Dr. Kyeong-Hee Kim the following Saturday, on Sept. 17, 2005, so that Yu could undergo the surgery in Beverly Hills. However, in order to secure the date, Yu was told she had to pay a cash deposit. So, she returned a few hours later and paid the deposit in cash. On Sept. 17, 2005, Yu presented to the Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center in Beverly Hills and met Kim for the first time. Kim ultimately determined that Yu was a proper candidate for the nose enhancement procedure and Yu signed a consent form. Pre-operative photos were then taken and the surgery went forward under anesthesia administered by Peter Golden, M.D. No complications were noted during the procedure and no problems were noted during Yu’s post-operative visit on Sept. 22, 2005. However, Yu presented to the Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center on Oct. 31, 2005, with complaints of her nose appearing to be deviated to the right of the midline. As a result, Kim agreed to adjust the implant used to raise the bridge of the nose at no cost. Between Oct. 31, 2005, and Dec. 10, 2005, Yu allegedly called the Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center several times with complaints of pain. She then returned to the center on Dec. 10, 2005, and Lu told her that the pain was normal, but that she would relay the complaints to Kim. Thereafter, Yu was seen by other doctors at the center, but did not see Kim again until Jan. 26, 2006, when she insisted that the implant was deviated to the left of midline. However, Kim could not detect the deviation. As a result, he allegedly told Yu to let everything heal for at least six months and if she was still unhappy with the appearance, he would consider a re-do. Yu never returned. Yu sued Kim; the Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center; Jiang; Lu; Golden; another anesthesiologist, Alexander Zaks, M.D.; Zaks’ medical office, Z-A Management Inc.; Beverly Hills Cosmetic Surgery; and Beverly Hills Outpatient Surgery Center. Yu claimed the defendants negligently performed the cosmetic surgery and failed to obtain her informed consent, and that their actions constituted medical malpractice. She also alleged the defendants’ actions constituted negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In addition, Yu alleged that an ad she saw regarding the center constituted misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duties, and unfair business practices. Yu contended the defendants were involved in a conspiracy to entice unsuspecting, young Asian immigrant females into having cosmetic surgery that they did not want or need. She claimed that she originally presented to the Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center after seeing an advertisement in the Chinese Yellow Pages, in which the ad claimed the center performed cosmetic surgeries, including enhancements on the bridge of the nose. She alleged the ad stated that surgeries at the center were performed by “a famous Korean plastic surgeon,” but that Dr. Kim was not Korean, as he was born and raised in Japan. Thus, Yu contended she was defrauded by the center’s deceptive advertising in the Chinese Yellow Pages. She further claimed that when she initially presented to the center, she met Lu and Jiang, who she presumed were physicians due to them wearing white lab coats. Thus, Yu contended that Lu and Jiang also defrauded her. As to the surgery, Yu claimed that she did not understand the consent form she was forced to sign the morning of the procedure, as it was in English and her primary language was Mandarin Chinese. She also claimed the procedure was improperly performed, as the implant was deviated to the left of midline, and that Kim failed to correct the deviation. In addition, Yu claimed that Kim was negligent for prescribing narcotic pain medication and antibiotics without first examining her. Defense counsel contended that Kim is Korean by ancestry and that Kim had nothing to do with the advertising or promotion of the care available at the Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center. Counsel also contended that Kim is a privately practicing plastic surgeon who performs surgeries on the center’s patients one day a week, as an independent contractor. Defense counsel further contended that Yu could not have relied on the ad in question because it was not published in the Chinese Yellow Pages until two months after her surgery. In addition, counsel contended that Yu sought out the center and Kim because her friend had a successful surgery there in July 2005 and highly recommended both to Yu. Regarding Yu’s medical care, defense counsel contended that Yu gave her full informed consent for the simple procedure, and that both pre- and post-operative photos taken by Kim failed to support her claim of a significant deviation of the implant. However, counsel argued that even if there was a deviation, the plaintiff’s expert otolaryngology surgeon conceded that there was nothing below good and accepted standards of medicine in the surgery itself, as the deviation of an implant is not evidence of sub-standard care. In addition, defense counsel argued prescribing standard post-operative medication was for Yu’s convenience and did not represent a departure from the standard of care., Yu claimed that after the 2005 procedure at the Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center, her nose appeared to be deviated to the right of the midline. She alleged that despite Kim attempting to adjust the implant on Oct. 31, 2005, the deviation remained and she continued to complain of pain. However, she alleged that when Kim told her to wait at least six months before he would address the deviation again, she did not return. As a result, in 2007, after Yu returned to China, she underwent a revision surgery, which included a new implant. Thus, Yu claimed she suffered a persistent deviation of the implant and continued pain until it was corrected by the 2007 surgery in China. She claimed that as a result, she suffered severe emotional distress. However, Yu claimed that after recovering from the 2007 surgery, she was pleased with the result and had no more pain. Yu claimed her past medical costs amounted to less than $5,000 and she sought recovery of damages for her pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed Yu’s claim of a deviation, contending that both pre- and post-operative photos taken by Kim failed to support her claim of a significant deviation of the implant. Counsel also disputed Yu’s claim of continued pain, arguing that Yu did not suffer much, if any, pain following the initial procedure. Defense counsel noted that Yu never took all of her original prescription of Vicodin and that Yu did not pick up the refill prescription after the corrective surgery of Oct. 31, 2005, although she did pick up the refill of her antibiotics.