This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/16/2019 at 16:01:42 (UTC).

JANE DOE VS MARQUIS JONES

Case Summary

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 Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6265

  • Filing Date:

    01/09/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • 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

DOE JANE

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-25

JONES MARQUIS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF RIVERS J. MORRELL III

MORRELL RIVERS JUDSON III

 

Court Documents

Order

10/5/2018: Order

Unknown

10/5/2018: Unknown

Declaration

10/5/2018: Declaration

Request for Dismissal

10/5/2018: Request for Dismissal

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

10/5/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Minute Order

5/28/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

5/28/2019: Unknown

Unknown

5/28/2019: Unknown

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

5/28/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Abstract of Judgment?Civil and Small Claims

6/5/2019: Abstract of Judgment?Civil and Small Claims

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/05/2019
  • Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (-Failure to File Default Judg) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: -Failure to File Default Judg)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: -Failure to File Default Judg) of 05/28/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Judgment (- Default Judgment By Court - Before Trial - 05/28/2019 entered for Plaintiff Doe, Jane against Defendant Jones, Marquis.); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2018
  • Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 7; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 10/05/2018); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
19 More Docket Entries
  • 06/25/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2017
  • STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (PERSONAL INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2017
  • Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2017
  • Default Entered; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2017
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2017
  • Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Jane Doe (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BATTERY ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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.