This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/28/2020 at 03:51:44 (UTC).

CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ VS SCOTT LUHRS, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/31/2018 CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against SCOTT LUHRS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3656

  • Filing Date:

    10/31/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Respondent

MARTINEZ CHRISTOPHER

Defendants and Appellants

WHITE TERA L.

WHITEHOUSEENTERPRISES LLC

CHATEAU BLANK LLC

LUHRS SCOTT

THE OKOROCHA FIRM INC. OKORIE OKOROCHA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MEHRBAN MORSE

15720 Ventura Blvd Ste 228

Encino, CA 91436

Defendant Attorney

OKOROCHA OKORIE

 

Court Documents

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

6/18/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...)

6/24/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...)

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

8/29/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service by Sheriff's Department

9/13/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service by Sheriff's Department

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

9/30/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Tera L. White's Motion to Vacate Judgment

12/11/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Tera L. White's Motion to Vacate Judgment

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment - Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment

3/5/2020: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment - Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

3/27/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/15/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter Re: Hearing on Motion to Compel Re...)]

7/3/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter Re: Hearing on Motion to Compel Re...)]

Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter Re: Hearing on Motion to Compel Re...)

7/3/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter Re: Hearing on Motion to Compel Re...)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order

7/29/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

3/21/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

3/21/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Complaint - Complaint

10/31/2018: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

10/31/2018: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

10/31/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

10/31/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

25 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/03/2021
  • Hearing11/03/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2021
  • Hearing01/12/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • DocketAppeal Record Delivered; Issued by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Original Clerk's Transcript 1 - 5 Volumes Certified 1 VOL 82 PAGES; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Clerk's Transcript Fee Paid APPELLANT PAID $173.23; Filed by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal BV034408; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal BV034408: As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal BV034408: As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103: As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
46 More Docket Entries
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory Transfer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/29/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Christopher Martinez (Plaintiff); As to: Scott Luhrs (Defendant); Chateau Blank, LLC (Defendant); Whitehouseenterprises LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Christopher Martinez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2018
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Christopher Martinez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Christopher Martinez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC13656    Hearing Date: February 26, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT

(CCP § 473(d))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Tera L. White’s Renewed Motion to Set Aside Default is DENIED.

OPPOSITION: Filed on January 24, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 24, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On October 31, 2018, Plaintiff Christopher Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against Defendants Scott Luhrs (“Luhrs”), Chateau Blanc, LLC (“Chateau”), and WhiteHouseEnterprises, LLC (“WhiteHouseEnterprises”). On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to the Complaint, substituting Tera L. White (“White”) for Doe 1.

Plaintiff filed a proof of service demonstrating that the Sheriff’s Department personally served Defendant White with a copy of the Summons and Complaint and with the Amendment to the Complaint at 4072 Farralon Way, Oxnard, California on September 6, 2019. (9/18/19 Proof of Service.) Default was entered against Defendant White on October 10, 2019.

Defendant White filed her first Motion to Set Aside Default on November 26, 2019. The Court denied that Motion because Defendant White failed to submit evidence demonstrating that she was not personally served with the Summons and Complaint. (1/16/20 Minute Order.)

On January 22, 2020, Defendant White filed the instant Renewed Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Default (the “Renewed Motion”). On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Opposition. To date, no reply brief has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 provides, in pertinent part:

(a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.

(b) A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion.

(e) This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1008, subd. (a), (b), (e).)

  1. Discussion

Here, Defendant White re-argues that she was never served with the Summons and Complaint, which deprived the Court of personal jurisdiction, and thus the default should be set aside under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d). (Mot., p. 3-4.)

However, Defendant White should have brought this Renewed Motion in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, which requires her to provide “new or different facts, circumstances or law” as well as a “satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time.” (Schiffer v. CBS Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 246, 255.) Notably, the submitted declaration is insufficient to meet the affidavit requirement. Defendant White’s declaration does not present any new facts or circumstances. It merely reiterates, without further elaboration, that she was never served with the doe amendment. (Mot., White Decl., § ¶ 2.)

As “no application…for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to [Section 1008],” Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Tera L. White’s Renewed Motion to Set Aside Default is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC13656    Hearing Date: January 16, 2020    Dept: 94

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(CCP § 473(d))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Tera L. White’s Motion to Vacate Default is DENIED.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for discrimination on the basis of disability.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Vacate default and default judgment against Defendant on the grounds that it was never served with the Summons and Complaint and the judgment is void as a result.

OPPOSITION: The motion should be denied because moving Defendant was personally served with the Summons, Complaint, and Amendment to Complaint.

REPLY: None filed as of January 13, 2020.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Christopher Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for discrimination on the basis of disability against Scott Luhrs, Chateau Blank, LLC and WhiteHouseEnterprises LLC on October 31, 2018. On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint substituting Tera L. White (“Defendant White”) as Doe 1. Following Defendant White’s failure to file a responsive pleading, the court entered her default on October 10, 2019. Defendant White filed the instant Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment on October 31, 2019. Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 11, 2019.

Discussion

The Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), under which “[t]he court may . . . set aside any void judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).) In County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1229, the Court of Appeal explained:

[W]here it is shown that there has been a complete failure of service of process upon a defendant, he generally has no duty to take affirmative action to preserve his right to challenge the judgment or order even if he later obtains actual knowledge of it because “[w]hat is initially void is ever void and life may not be breathed into it by lapse of time.” (Morgan, supra, 105 Cal.App.2d at p. 731, 234 P.2d 319.) Consequently under such circumstances, “neither laches nor the ordinary statutes of limitation may be invoked as a defense” against an action or proceeding to vacate such a judgment or order. (Id. at p. 732, 234 P.2d 319.) And, where evidence is admitted without objection that shows the existence of the invalidity of a judgment or order valid on its face, “it is the duty of the court to declare the judgment or order void.” (Thompson v. Cook (1942) 20 Cal.2d 564, 569, 127 P.2d 909 (Cook ).)

(County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1215.) There being no deadline to bring a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), Defendant White’s Motion for relief under this statute is timely.

Defendant White must now demonstrate that she was not served with the Summons and Complaint. The proof of substitute service filed on September 18, 2019 is attested to by California sheriff and therefore “is prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the return” of service. (Cal. Gov. Code, § 26662.) It states that Defendant White was personally served on September 6, 2019 at 11:37 am at 4072 Farralon Way, Oxnard, California. (Proof of Service, filed 9/18/19, ¶¶2-7.) Defendant White’s evidence must overcome this prima facie showing.

Although the Motion contends Defendant White has not been served the Complaint, she provides no supporting declaration or evidence demonstrating this fact. Instead, the Motion is supported solely by the declaration of Defendant White’s counsel, who states that the attorney was never served a copy of any doe amendment. Service on Defendant’s White’s counsel of the Doe amendment is irrelevant to the validity of service of the Summons and Complaint. As Defendant White has not shown that she was not personally served with the Summons and Complaint, the Motion to Vacate Default is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.