Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/22/2019 at 09:22:56 (UTC).

TERRY DIXON VS DOES 1 THROUGH 500

Case Summary

On 11/23/2015 TERRY DIXON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against DOES 1 THROUGH 500. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2049

  • Filing Date:

    11/23/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

DIXON TERRY

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 500

SAMUELS ROY

SAMUELS SEAN ROY

SAMUELS ROY SEAN

ROBINSON BRITTANY

BRITTNEY ROBINSON DOE 4

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

ALAN KEITH ESQ.

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

11/20/2015: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Unknown

11/24/2015: Unknown

Unknown

1/20/2016: Unknown

ANSWER?PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

1/20/2016: ANSWER?PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

2/16/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

2/16/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

2/16/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER (SUPERIOR COURT)

3/7/2016: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER (SUPERIOR COURT)

ANSWER

3/7/2016: ANSWER

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/27/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Minute Order

4/27/2017: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER VACATING OR CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND ALL ASSOCIATED DATES; ETC.

4/27/2017: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER VACATING OR CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND ALL ASSOCIATED DATES; ETC.

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/27/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

11/29/2017: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

2 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Terry Dixon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Terry Dixon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2018
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2018
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2018
  • FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
43 More Docket Entries
  • 02/16/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Terry Dixon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2016
  • Answer; Filed by Roy Samuels (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2016
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2016
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2016
  • ANSWER PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2015
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2015
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Terry Dixon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2015
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Terry Dixon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC602049    Hearing Date: February 19, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

TERRY DIXON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DOES 1 through 50,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC602049

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT ROY SAMUELS’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND VACATE DEFAULT

Dept. 27

8:30 a.m.

February 19, 2020

On November 23, 2015, plaintiff Terry Dixon (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Doe Defendants 1-500.  On June 28, 2018, Plaintiff, along with newly-added plaintiff Jeremiah Seymore, filed a First Amended Complaint naming Roy Sean Samuels and Britney Robinson. The FAC had a proof of service showing service on Sean Roy Samuels by mail and Brittany Robinson.  On June 6, 2019, Dixon filed a proof of service of summons showing service of the FAC on Roy Sean Samuels (“Defendant”) on October 24, 2018.  On September 3, 2019, default was entered against Defendant.

On March 5, 2020, Defendant demurred to the FAC.  On July 27, 2020, the Court denied the FAC because Defendant had not moved to vacate the default against him, and therefore had no right to appear in the case or further litigate the action.  Defendant filed this Motion to quash service of summons on September 24, 2020. 

“The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgments or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and 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).)  “ ‘A default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.’  Under section 473, subdivision (d), the court may set aside a default judgment which is valid on its face, but void, as a matter of law, due to improper service.”  (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1200, citations omitted; Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544.)  Relief on this basis generally requires consideration of extrinsic evidence.  (Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 175, 180.)

Filing a proof of service by a registered process server creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper.¿ (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara¿(2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390;¿Evid. Code, § 647 [“The return of a process server registered pursuant to . . . the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return”].)¿ Proof of service of summons may be impeached by evidence that contradicts it.¿ (City of Los Angeles v. Morgan¿(1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 726, 731.)¿¿When a defendant moves to quash service of summons, the plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.”¿ (Coulston¿v. Cooper¿(1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868.)¿

Defendant argues that he was never served with the FAC because he was at work at the time of service and he worked Monday to Friday from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. (Samuels Decl., ¶ 3.)  

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant has already appeared in the matter by filing a demurrer and can no longer seek to quash service of summons.  The Court disagrees.  Defendant could not have appeared until the default was set aside.  The default cuts off a defendant’s right to appear in the action.  (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385-386.)  

Plaintiff also argues the Motion is untimely because default was entered on September 3, 2019 and this Motion was filed a year after his default was entered and more than six months after he received notice that default was entered. However, this deadline is inapplicable to a motion to set aside default under section 473 (d) where the claim is that the defendant was never served.  Therefore, Plaintiff’s citation to section 473(b) is irrelevant.  

Lastly, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s Motion should be denied because Defendant did not submit a proposed pleading.   Again, this argument is not well-taken because Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) does not require a proposed pleading.  

The Court further notes that Plaintiff appears to refer to Sean Roy Samuels and Defendant interchangeably because he claims Defendant was mail-served with the FACHowever, the party moving to set aside default in this case is “Roy Sean Samuels.”  The only proof of service for the FAC on Roy Sean Samuels shows personal service on October 24, 2018 at 3:30 p.m.  Defendant has provided evidence to impeach the rebuttable presumption raised by the proof of service.  Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to meet his burden showing that service was effected

Defendant’s Motion to set aside the default is GRANTED. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this3rddayof February 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC602049    Hearing Date: February 03, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

TERRY DIXON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DOES 1 through 50,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC602049

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT ROY SAMUELS’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND VACATE DEFAULT

Dept. 27

8:30 a.m.

February 3, 2020

On November 23, 2015, plaintiff Terry Dixon (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Doe Defendants 1-500.  On June 28, 2018, Plaintiff, along with newly-added plaintiff Jeremiah Seymore, filed a First Amended Complaint naming Roy Sean Samuels and Britney Robinson. The FAC had a proof of service showing service on Sean Roy Samuels by mail and Brittany Robinson.  On June 6, 2019, Dixon filed a proof of service of summons showing service of the FAC on Roy Sean Samuels (“Defendant”) on October 24, 2018.  On September 3, 2019, default was entered against Defendant.

On March 5, 2020, Defendant demurred to the FAC.  On July 27, 2020, the Court denied the FAC because Defendant had not moved to vacate the default against him, and therefore had no right to appear in the case or further litigate the action.  Defendant filed this Motion to quash service of summons on September 24, 2020. 

“The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgments or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and 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).)  “ ‘A default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.’  Under section 473, subdivision (d), the court may set aside a default judgment which is valid on its face, but void, as a matter of law, due to improper service.”  (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1200, citations omitted; Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544.)  Relief on this basis generally requires consideration of extrinsic evidence.  (Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 175, 180.)

Filing a proof of service by a registered process server creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper.¿ (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara¿(2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390;¿Evid. Code, § 647 [“The return of a process server registered pursuant to . . . the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return”].)¿ Proof of service of summons may be impeached by evidence that contradicts it.¿ (City of Los Angeles v. Morgan¿(1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 726, 731.)¿¿When a defendant moves to quash service of summons, the plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.”¿ (Coulston¿v. Cooper¿(1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868.)¿

Defendant argues that he was never served with the FAC because he was at work at the time of service and he worked Monday to Friday from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. (Samuels Decl., ¶ 3.)  

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant has already appeared in the matter by filing a demurrer and can no longer seek to quash service of summons.  The Court disagrees.  Defendant could not have appeared until the default was set aside.  The default cuts off a defendant’s right to appear in the action.  (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385-386.)  

Plaintiff also argues the Motion is untimely because default was entered on September 3, 2019 and this Motion was filed a year after his default was entered and more than six months after he received notice that default was entered. However, this deadline is inapplicable to a motion to set aside default under section 473 (d) where the claim is that the defendant was never served.  Therefore, Plaintiff’s citation to section 473(b) is irrelevant.  

Lastly, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s Motion should be denied because Defendant did not submit a proposed pleading.   Again, this argument is not well-taken because Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) does not require a proposed pleading.  

The Court further notes that Plaintiff appears to refer to Sean Roy Samuels and Defendant interchangeably because he claims Defendant was mail-served with the FACHowever, the party moving to set aside default in this case is “Roy Sean Samuels.”  The only proof of service for the FAC on Roy Sean Samuels shows personal service on October 24, 2018 at 3:30 p.m.  Defendant has provided evidence to impeach the rebuttable presumption raised by the proof of service.  Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to meet his burden showing that service was effected

Defendant’s Motion to set aside the default is GRANTED. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 3rd day of February 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC602049    Hearing Date: July 27, 2020    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

TERRY DIXON, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

DOES 1 THROUGH 500,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC602049

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT ROY SEAN SAMUELS’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Dept. 27

3:30 p.m.

July 27, 2020

On November 23, 2015, plaintiff Terry Dixon filed this action against Doe Defendants 1 through 500 for injuries sustained when he broke a bone in his hand while wrestling a dog who attacked his nephew, Jeremiah S.  On June 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) adding Jeremiah Seymore as a plaintiff and naming Sean Roy Samuels, Roy Sean Samuels (“Defendant”), and Britney Robinson.  On September 4, 2018, Plaintiffs named Brittany Robinson as Doe No. 4. 

On September 9, 2019, default was entered as to Defendant.  The entry of a default terminates a defendant's rights to take any further affirmative steps in the litigation until either its default is set aside or a default judgment is entered. (See Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385-86.)

Defendant now demurs to the FAC.  However, Defendant has not moved to set aside entry of default. Accordingly, the Demurrer is stricken.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 436.)  

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 27th day of July 2020

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

TERRY DIXON,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

DOES 1-100,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: BC602049

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Dept. 27

)

On November 23, 2015, plaintiff Terry Dixon filed this action against Doe Defendants 1-500. Dixon filed a First Amended Complaint on June 28, 2018 naming Roy Sean Samuels and Britney Robinson. On June 6, 2019, Dixon filed proof of service of summons on Britney Robinson, Brittany Robinson, Roy Sean Samuels, and Sean Roy Samuels (“Defendants”). On September 3, 2019, default was entered against Defendants. On February 18, 2020, Dixon was approved as the guardian ad litem for Jeremiah Seymore, who was added as a plaintiff. On November 4, 2019, Dixon submitted a request for default judgment against Roy Sean Samuels in the amount of $173,114,580, consisting of $21,611,999 in special damages, $151,500,000 in general damages, and $3,580 in costs.

When a defendant has been served and no answer, demurrer, or certain motion has been filed within the time specified in the summons, the clerk shall enter the default of the defendant. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b).) The court shall then render judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, not exceeding the amount stated in the statement of damages, as appears by the evidence to be just. (Ibid.)

The application for default judgment fails to adhere to California Rule of Court 3.1800 and is deficient for several reasons including, but not limited to, the following reasons:

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

Dated this 27th day of July 2020

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court