Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/29/2016 at 22:12:09 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL VS LOPEZ, CONCEPCION D

Case Summary

On 10/03/2006 STATE FARM MUTUAL filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against LOPEZ, CONCEPCION D. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5705

  • Filing Date:

    10/03/2006

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STATE FARM MUTUAL

Defendants

LOPEZ CONCEPCION D

LOPEZ MAURICIO E

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT R KAMRATH

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/03/2007
  • (2) DL30'S ISSUED: RETURNED BY ATTY SVC/EL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2007
  • UNSATISFIED JUDGMENT TO DMV-DL30 ISSUED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2007
  • DL-30 RECEIVED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2007
  • PLAINTIFF'S NTC OF JUDGMENT LIEN

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2007
  • ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT ISSUED (6). RETURNED VIA ATTY SVS/JW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2007
  • ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2007
  • ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2007
  • ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2007
  • ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2007
  • ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
12 More Docket Entries
  • 12/07/2006
  • SUBMISSION FOR DEFAULT ONLY PENDING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2006
  • REQUEST FOR DEFAULT FILED AND ENTERED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2006
  • REQUEST FOR DEFAULT FILED AND ENTERED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2006
  • SUBMISSION FOR DEFAULT ONLY PENDING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2006
  • PROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2006
  • DECLARATION REGARDING DILIGENCE FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2006
  • NON-APP CASE MGMT REVIEW SCHEDULED FOR 01/02/07, IN DEPT CLK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2006
  • CMR CLERK'S CERT OF SERVICE MAILED TO RESPECTIVE PARTIES/COUNSEL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2006
  • COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2006
  • SUMMONS FILED

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 06K15705    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT; QUASH SERVICE

(CCP § 473(b), (d); § 473.5; 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Mauricio E. Lopez’s Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default and Default Judgment and Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint are GRANTED.

SERVICE:

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

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

[X] 16/21 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for automobile subrogation.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Set aside default judgment entered against Defendant Mauricio E. Lopez on the grounds that it is void and quash service of the Summons and Complaint.

OPPOSITION: The judgment is not void from the face of the Court’s record, nor has Defendant demonstrated that the substitute service was improper. Finally, Defendant has not been diligent in moving to set aside the judgment.

REPLY: None filed as of October 28, 2019. CONFIDENTIAL, COURT PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT

Rashmi Basava, ext. 0570 2

ANALYSIS:

On October 3, 2006, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("Plaintiff") filed this action against Defendants Mauricio E. Lopez ("Mauricio") and Concepcion D. Lopez ("Concepcion"). Plaintiff alleged that Concepcion was the driver of a vehicle that caused injuries to one of its insured, and that Mauricio was the owner of the subject vehicle. Following their failure to respond, default was entered against Defendants with default judgment entered on January 31, 2007.

Mauricio filed a Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint that the Court denied on June 10, 2019. He then filed the instant Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment, and to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint on September 13, 2019. Plaintiff filed its opposition on October 17, 2019.

Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment

Mauricio moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d) on the grounds that the judgment is void on the face of the record.

"‘[A] void judgment can be attacked at any time by a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d).’ [Citation.]" (Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co., Ltd. (2018) 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 814, 829.) 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 (emphasis added).) If the judgment is not void on its face, the time limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 apply. (See 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 a default judgment valid on its face but otherwise void because of improper service" (citing Rogers v. Silverman (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1124).)

On November 1, 2006, Plaintiff filed a proof of substitute service that states the Summons and Complaint were served on Mauricio by leaving the papers at 9734 Norlain Avenue, Downey, California on October 17, 2006 with Concepcion Lopez, Co-Occupant. (Opp., Reese Decl., Exh. B, ¶¶4-5.) The papers were thereafter mailed to the Norlain Avenue address on October 18, 2006. (Id. at ¶5(b)(4).) Service, therefore, was effective as of October 28, 2006. (Code Civ. Prov., § 415.20, subd. (b).) Notably, the papers were served by a registered California process server, so the proof of service is entitled a presumption of accuracy. (See Cal. Evid. Code, § 647.)

In his motion, Mauricio points out that the address listed on the proof of service differs from the address set forth as his residence in Plainitff’s declaration in support of request for default judgment. Specifically, on December 21, 2006, Plaintiff submited the decalartion of a Claim Handler named David Braning. (Motion, Lopez Decl., Exh. 2.) Braning attached a copy of the vehicle registration report for proof of ownership of Mauricio’s vehicle, dated August 17, 2006, which states that CONFIDENTIAL, COURT PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT

Rashmi Basava, ext. 0570 3

Mauricio’s address is 11600 Garfield Avenue, City of South Gate. (Ibid.)

This evidence demosntrates that the judgment is void on its face. When considering the facial validity of a 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 is allowed.") In a case where the Complaint has not been answered, the judgment roll consists of "the summons, with the affidavit or proof of service; the complaint; the request for entry of default with a memorandum indorsed thereon that the default of the defendant in not answering was entered, and a copy of the judgment." (Code Civ. Proc., § 670, subd. (a).) Here, Mauricio relies on the proof of service and the request for default with memorandum endorsed thereon to show that the address at which he was served did not comport with his address on record with the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

Plaintiff’s opposition fails to address this discrepancy in the addresses presented through the judgment roll. It argues only that the proof of service is facially valid and ignores the Garfield Avenue address. (Opp., p. 6:24-7:7.) Plaintiff also argues that the Motion is time-barred. As noted above, however, a motion to vacate default brought on the grounds that the judgment is facially void can be brought at any time.

Defendant Mauricio E. Lopez’s Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED.

Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint

In light of the court’s determination on Mauricio’s Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment, it finds the Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint also has merit. "A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her." (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).)

The Court for good cause finds for the timing of the Motion to Quash given the lack of proper service, as discussed above.

The Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint is GRANTED.

Court clerk to give notice.