On 05/16/2019 SUPERSHUTTLE ONTARIO, INC filed a Contract - Insurance lawsuit against DAVID GONZALEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
*******4775
05/16/2019
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
WENDY CHANG
SUPERSHUTTLE ONTARIO INC.
GONZALEZ DAVID
ESTRADA IMELDA
HAINES TODD F.
10/15/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
12/9/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECL RE MEMORANDUM OF INTEREST
12/9/2019: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal
12/9/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
12/9/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
12/30/2019: Judgment - Judgment BY COURT BY DEFAULT
12/30/2019: Judgment - Judgment BY COURT BY DEFAULT
2/4/2020: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims
6/30/2020: Motion to Quash - Motion to Quash
7/16/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order re Motion to Quash Service and Set Aside Default ...)
9/16/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Mtn to Quash Service and for Order Setting Aside Default and Default Jmt
9/29/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply Defendants' reply to opposition to motion to quash service and set aside default against defendant; declaration of Larry T. Valdez
10/6/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Set Aside D...)
10/6/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Set Aside D...) of 10/06/2020
9/12/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service
5/16/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint
5/16/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
5/16/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
Hearing08/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
DocketUpdated -- Motion to Quash: Filed By: Imelda Estrada (Defendant),David Gonzalez (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 10/06/2020
DocketOn the Complaint filed by Supershuttle Ontario, Inc. on 05/16/2019 Default entered on 10/15/2019, Vacated as to David Gonzalez - motion.
DocketOn the Complaint filed by Supershuttle Ontario, Inc. on 05/16/2019, Default entered on 10/15/2019, Vacated - .
DocketUpdated -- On the Complaint filed by Supershuttle Ontario, Inc. on 05/16/2019, judgment entered on 12/30/2019 is vacated
DocketOn the Complaint filed by Supershuttle Ontario, Inc. on 05/16/2019, judgment entered on 12/30/2019 as to David Gonzalez is
DocketUpdated -- On the Complaint filed by Supershuttle Ontario, Inc. on 05/16/2019, judgment entered on 12/30/2019 is vacated
DocketOn the Complaint filed by Supershuttle Ontario, Inc. on 05/16/2019, judgment entered on 12/30/2019 as to Imelda Estrada is
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Set Aside D...)
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Supershuttle Ontario, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Imelda Estrada (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 09/03/2019; Service Cost: 122.00; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Supershuttle Ontario, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: David Gonzalez (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 09/03/2019; Service Cost: 73.00; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/12/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/19/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Supershuttle Ontario, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: David Gonzalez (Defendant); Imelda Estrada (Defendant)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Supershuttle Ontario, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: David Gonzalez (Defendant); Imelda Estrada (Defendant)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Supershuttle Ontario, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: David Gonzalez (Defendant); Imelda Estrada (Defendant)
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
Case Number: 19STLC04775 Hearing Date: October 06, 2020 Dept: 26
SuperShuttle Ontario,
Inc. v. Estrada, et al VACATE DEFAULT; QUASH SERVICE (CCP §§ 418.10, 473) TENTATIVE RULING: ANALYSIS: On May 16, 2019, Plaintiff SuperShuttle Ontario, Inc. (“Plaintiff”)
filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants David
Gonzalez and Imelda Estrada (“Defendants”). When Defendants failed to file a
responsive pleading, Plaintiff obtained entry of default and default judgment
on October 15, 2019 and December 30, 2019, respectively. On June 30, 2020, Defendants filed the instant Motion to
Quash Service and Set Aside Default. Plaintiff filed an opposition on September
16, 2020. Discussion Defendants move to vacate the entry of default and default
judgment for failure to serve the Summons and Complaint as required by statute.
Although the Notice of Motion refers to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5,
the Motion itself relies on case law pertaining to Code of Civil Procedure
section 473, subdivision (d). (Motion, p. 8:6-14 (citing MJS Enterprises,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 555, 557.) Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d) states
that “[t]he court may .... on motion of either party after notice to the other
party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd.
(d).) “California is a jurisdiction where the original service of process,
which confers jurisdiction, must conform to statutory requirements or all that
follows is void.” (Honda Motor Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10
Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048.) There is no time limit on when a void judgment can be challenged.
(Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pyle (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 513, 526
(citing Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 830; Code Civ.
Proc., § 473, subd. (d).) Defendants must demonstrate that service of the
Summons and Complaint did not substantially comply with the statutory
requirements, which can be shown by a failure of actual notice. (Ramos v.
Homeward Residential, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1442-1443.) The
proofs of substitute service filed on September 12, 2019 are attested to by a
registered process server, and therefore, are entitled to a presumption of
validity. (Cal. Evid. Code, § 647.) The proofs states that following multiple
attempts at personal service, the Summons and Complaint were left with a person
named Zemi “Jane Doe” or “John Doe” who refused to give a last name. (Proofs of
Service, file 9/12/20, ¶5.) The process server goes on to describe the person as
male, Hispanic, 21+ years old, with brown hair, 5 feet 9 inches tall and 250+
pounds. (Proofs of Service, filed 9/12/19, ¶5.) The papers were left with this
person at 9781 Indiana Avenue, Riverside, California on September 3, 2019.
(Proofs of Service, filed 9/12/19, ¶¶4-5.) Defendants submit declarations stating that they
reside at the service address with Defendant Estrada’s minor son, Sammy Estrada.
(Motion, Estrada Decl., ¶4; Gonzalez Decl., ¶4.) They attest that in September
2019, Sammy Estrada was 14 years old. (Motion, Estrada Decl., ¶4; Gonzalez
Decl., ¶4.) Defendants also contend that they were unaware of this action until
contacted by their insurer in June 2020. (Motion, Estrada Decl., ¶¶5-6;
Gonzalez Decl., ¶¶5-6.) Defendants’ evidence is sufficient to overcome the
presumption of service as set forth in the proofs of service and to shift the
burden to Plaintiff to demonstrate service that substantially complies with the
statutory requirements. Delivery of the Summons and Complaint to a minor does
not substanially comply with the statutory requirements for obvious reasons. A
minor cannot be trusted to understand the nature and import of legal documents
and to communicate that information to Defendants. Plaintiff’s opposition offers no evidence to
demonstrate that the Summons and Complaint were handed to “a person at least 18
years of age” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20. Instead,
Plaintiff’s counsel challenges Defendants’ credibility while arguing the
process server is a disinterested nonparty. (Opp., Tapper Decl., ¶¶5-6.)
Plaintiff’s counsel does provide evidence to dispute Defendants’ contention
that they only received notice of this action in June 2020. Specifically,
Plaintiff’s counsel has notes of two phone calls from Defendant Estrada
regarding the action. (Id. at ¶3 and Exh. B.) In the first call on
October 24, 2019, Defendant Estrada said she received an undescribed legal document
and would obtain counsel. (Ibid.) The second call was on an unknown date
after October 24, 2019 in which Defendant Estrada indicated she had obtained
the Summons and Complaint. (Id. at ¶4 and Exh. B.) While this evidence casts some doubt about when Defendants
obtained actual notice of the action, it does not support proper service of the
Summons and Complaint in a manner that substantially complies with the
statutory requirements. Nothing in the phone calls from Defendant Estrada shows
that Defendants were aware of this action prior to entry of default. The Court
cannot find that Plaintiff’s attempt at service resulted in actual notice in
time to defend the action. Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the
service attempt substantially complied with the statutory requirements for
substitute service. Without substantial compliance, all judicial processes that
follows the attempt at service, including the entry of default and default
judgment, is void. (Honda Motor Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10
Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048.) Finally, when a motion to quash is
brought concurrently with a motion to vacate default, the court must rule on
the motion to vacate first. (Steven M. Garber & Assocs. v Eskandarian
(2007) 150 CA4th 813, 819 (holding that a defendant against whom a default has
been entered is out of court and is not entitled to take any further affirmative
steps in the action except for a motion for relief from the default).) Having
determined the request to vacate default and default judgment should be granted
because service of the Summons and Complaint did not substantially comply with
the statutory requirements, the Court grants Defendants’ request to quash
service of the Summons and Complaint. Conclusion Defendants David Gonzalez and Imelda Estrada’s Motion to
Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint and to Vacate Entry of Default and
Default Judgment is GRANTED. Court clerk to give notice.