On 01/09/2017 JANE DOE filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against MARQUIS JONES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. SEIGLE and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. SEIGLE
EDWARD B. MORETON
LAW OFFICES OF RIVERS J. MORRELL III
MORRELL RIVERS JUDSON III
CROWE WILLIAM K.
7/31/2019: Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest
8/1/2019: Writ of Execution - WRIT OF EXECUTION (LOS ANGELES)
1/21/2020: Notice of Hearing on Claim of Exemption or in lieu of Third-Party Claim
1/28/2020: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment
2/13/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MARQUIS JONES' MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
2/13/2020: Request for Judicial Notice
2/20/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON CLAIM OF EXEMPTION/THIRD-PARTY CLAIM)
3/6/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUD...)
3/6/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUD...) OF 03/06/2020
10/5/2018: Request for Dismissal
10/5/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
5/28/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: -FAILURE TO FILE DEFAULT JUDG)
5/28/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: -FAILURE TO FILE DEFAULT JUDG) OF 05/28/2019
6/5/2019: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...) of 03/06/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Claim of Exemption/Third-Party Claim - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Claim of Exemption/Third-Party Claim)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MARQUIS JONES' MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment; Filed by Marquis Jones (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Opposition to Claim of Exemption; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Hearing on Claim of Exemption or in lieu of Third-Party Claim; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2018-06-25 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketStatement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death); Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketSTATEMENT OF DAMAGES (PERSONAL INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH)Read MoreRead Less
DocketREQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULTRead MoreRead Less
DocketDefault Entered; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of ServiceRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. BATTERY ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC646265 Hearing Date: March 06, 2020 Dept: 27
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
On January 9, 2017, plaintiff Jane Doe filed this action against defendant Marquis Jones (“Defendant”) for battery, negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional and negligent misrepresentation. Default was entered in October 5, 2018, and the a default judgment was entered on May 28, 2019. Defendant moves to set aside the default judgment on grounds that he lacked actual notice, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 and section 473, subdivision (d).
Where a service of summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action, the party may move the court to set aside default and default judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd. (a).) The motion must be made no later than two years after entry of default or 180 days after service of a written notice that default or default judgment has been entered. (Ibid.) The party must act with diligence upon learning of the judgment. (Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 175, 180; Code Civ. Proc., §473.5, subd. (a).) The party seeking to set aside must also submit a declaration that lack of actual notice was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect and a copy of the proposed answer, motion, or other pleading proposed to be filed in the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd. (b).)
“The 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).) “‘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.) 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.)
Defendant argues he was not personally served and the “substituted service was to an unknown individual not either an employee nor a family member.” (Jones Decl., ¶ 2.) The proof of service of summons filed on March 13, 2017, states that a registered process server personally served Defendant on March 3, 2017, at 8:57 a.m. at 333 S. Beaudry Avenue, Los Angeles CA 90017. Defendant is described as “African American Male 40 Yrs 6’02” 200 lbs. bald/shaved hair.”
The filed proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption of proper service. Defendant did not provide sufficient evidence showing he was not personally served or lacked actual notice. His declaration is too conclusory to rebut the presumption. On this record, the Court cannot find that Defendant was not personally served or lacked actual notice preventing him from defending the action.
Defendant’s motion 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.