This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/14/2021 at 06:25:33 (UTC).

RAYMOND MCPHETERS VS PAYAM JAVAHERI

Case Summary

On 11/21/2019 RAYMOND MCPHETERS filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against PAYAM JAVAHERI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0776

  • Filing Date:

    11/21/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MCPHETERS RAYMOND

Defendant

JAVAHERI PAYAM

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MEHRBAN MORSE

Defendant Attorney

KERENDIAN RAMIN JOSEPH

 

Court Documents

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

10/8/2020: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment - Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment

Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference (Construction-Related Accessibility C - Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference (Construction-Related Accessibility

2/3/2021: Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference (Construction-Related Accessibility C - Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference (Construction-Related Accessibility

Answer - Answer

2/3/2021: Answer - Answer

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

2/3/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...)

Application (name extension) - Application For stay and early evaluation

2/3/2021: Application (name extension) - Application For stay and early evaluation

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

2/5/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Statement of the Case - Statement of the Case

2/8/2021: Statement of the Case - Statement of the Case

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Defendant's Evidence of Correction

4/29/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Defendant's Evidence of Correction

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

5/12/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order

Minute Order - Minute Order (Early Evaluation Conference (Construction Related Accessibili...)

5/12/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Early Evaluation Conference (Construction Related Accessibili...)

Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

4/14/2020: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

Default Judgment - Default Judgment

3/23/2020: Default Judgment - Default Judgment

Default Judgment - Default Judgment

3/23/2020: Default Judgment - Default Judgment

Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment - Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

3/2/2020: Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment - Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

3/2/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

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

3/2/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

3/2/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Answer - Answer

3/6/2020: Answer - Answer

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/18/2021
  • Hearing11/18/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2021
  • DocketThe case is removed from the special status of: Stay - Entire Action/Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/18/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment or Order; Filed by: Raymond McPheters (Plaintiff); As to: Payam Javaheri (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Early Evaluation Conference (Construction Related Accessibili...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketEarly Evaluation Conference (Construction Related Accessibility Claim) scheduled for 05/12/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 05/12/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2021
  • DocketNotice of Defendant's Evidence of Correction; Filed by: Payam Javaheri (Defendant); As to: Raymond McPheters (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2021
  • DocketStatement of the Case; Filed by: Raymond McPheters (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Payam Javaheri (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2021
  • DocketEarly Evaluation Conference (Construction Related Accessibility Claim) scheduled for 05/12/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
24 More Docket Entries
  • 11/21/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Raymond McPheters (Plaintiff); As to: Payam Javaheri (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Raymond McPheters (Plaintiff); As to: Payam Javaheri (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Raymond McPheters (Plaintiff); As to: Payam Javaheri (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Raymond McPheters (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Raymond McPheters (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/20/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/28/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC10776    Hearing Date: February 03, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., February 3, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: McPheters v. Javaheri COMPL. FILED: 11-21-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC10776 DEFAULT: 03-02-20

NOTICE: OK DEF. JDGMT: 03-23-20

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Payam Javaheri

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT

(CCP § 473(d))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Payam Javaheri’s unopposed Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED. The default entered on March 2, 2020 and default judgment entered on March 23, 2020 are HEREBY VACATED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of February 1, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 1, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On November 21, 2019, Plaintiff Raymond McPheters (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against Defendant Payam Javaheri (“Defendant”). Default was entered against him on March 2, 2020. Defendant filed his Answer on March 6, 2020. A default judgment of $5,125.00 was thereafter entered on March 23, 2020.

On October 8, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment and Judgment (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.

  1. Legal Standard

“A summons is the process by which a court acquires personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil action. The form of a summons is prescribed by law, and this form must be substantially observed. [Citation.] Service of a substantially defective summons does not confer jurisdiction over a party [citation] and will not support a default judgment. [Citation.]” (MJS Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 555, 557.) “Thus, a default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.’ [Citation.]” (Sakaguchi v. Sakaguchi (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 852, 858, emphasis added.)

A trial court has the inherent power to set aside a judgment void on its face at any time. (Connelly v. Castillo (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1583, 1588.) When considering the facial validity of ta judgment, the Court may only consider the contents of the judgment roll. (OC Interior Services, LLC v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1318, 1327 (holding that “[t]o prove that the judgment is void, the party challenging the judgment is limited to the judgment roll, i.e., no extrinsic evidence allowed.”).) If the judgment is not void on its face, the time limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 apply. (Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 175, 180-81; Schekel v. Resnik (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 3-4 (“[t]he Rogers court held that the time limitation set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 applies by analogy to motions for relief from default judgment valid on its face but otherwise void for improper service” [citing Rogers v. Silverman (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1124.]).)

  1. Discussion

Defendant’s Motion is timely. Defendant argues default was prematurely entered because he was served by substitute service, not personal service. (Mot., p. 2:1-6.)

Plaintiff filed a proof of service on March 2, 2020 purporting to show that Defendant was personally served by a registered process server on Friday, January 24, 2020 at 4:20 p.m. at 474 Bedford Dr., Beverly Hills, CA 90212 (the “Bedford Address”). (3/2/20 Proof of Service.) However, Defendant provides the sworn declaration of Neda Mikhalili stating that she lives at the Bedford Address and that on January 24, 2020, it was she that was served with the Summons and Complaint, not Defendant. (Mot., Mikhaili Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant also provides his sworn declaration stating that he was never served with the Summons and Complaint and that he was not home at the time of purported service. (Id., Javaheri Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) He further explains he is a self-employed business owner with weekly business hours of 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and that he usually does not arrive home at until 7:30 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. (Id., Javaheri Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) Notably, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition arguing otherwise. Based on the evidence submitted, the Court is persuaded that Defendant was substitute served, not personally served.

Substitute service requires a declaration of due diligence and a statement that the person serving the documents thereafter mailed the summons and complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).) Neither are included here.

Because Defendant was substitute served, he had until March 4, 2020 to file a response under Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20. The default here was entered on March 2, 2020, before Defendant’s time to respond had expired.

As Plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of substitute service and as default was prematurely entered, the default and default judgment are void and are HEREBY VACATED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Payam Javaheri’s unopposed Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED. The default entered on March 2, 2020 and default judgment entered on March 23, 2020 are HEREBY VACATED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KERENDIAN RAMIN JOSEPH