Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/27/2019 at 03:12:32 (UTC).

MARTIN ANALCO ET AL VS PEDRO CASTILLO

Case Summary

On 03/23/2017 MARTIN ANALCO filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against PEDRO CASTILLO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5073

  • Filing Date:

    03/23/2017

  • 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

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

ANALCO MARTIN

MARTINEZ CARMEN

ANALCO FERNANDO

ANALEO ALBERTO

Defendants and Respondents

CASTILLO PEDRO

DOES 1-100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF EVERARDO VARGAS VALENCIA

 

Court Documents

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

8/27/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Minute Order

9/6/2018: Minute Order

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

9/11/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Minute Order

11/28/2018: Minute Order

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/5/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Unknown

12/18/2018: Unknown

Declaration re: Due Diligence

1/11/2019: Declaration re: Due Diligence

Minute Order

1/14/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/28/2019: Minute Order

Case Management Statement

4/9/2019: Case Management Statement

Request For Entry of Judgment (Enforcement of Judgment)

4/30/2019: Request For Entry of Judgment (Enforcement of Judgment)

Proof of Service

2/1/2018: Proof of Service

Unknown

3/23/2017: Unknown

Unknown

3/23/2017: Unknown

Unknown

3/23/2017: Unknown

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1) NEGLIGENT BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ;ETC

3/23/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1) NEGLIGENT BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ;ETC

Unknown

3/23/2017: Unknown

SUMMONS

3/23/2017: SUMMONS

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/30/2019
  • Request For Entry of Judgment (Enforcement of Judgment); Filed by Martin Analco (Plaintiff); Carmen Martinez (Plaintiff); Alberto Analeo (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Martin Analco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2019
  • Minute Order ((Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • Declaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by Martin Analco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Martin Analco (Plaintiff); Carmen Martinez (Plaintiff); Alberto Analeo (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
7 More Docket Entries
  • 08/27/2018
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2018
  • Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Martin Analco (Plaintiff); Carmen Martinez (Plaintiff); Alberto Analeo (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Martin Analco (Plaintiff); Carmen Martinez (Plaintiff); Alberto Analeo (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2017
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2017
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2017
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1) NEGLIGENT BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2017
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC655073    Hearing Date: March 05, 2021    Dept: 29

Martin Analco, et al. v. Pedro Castillo

Defendant Pedro Castillo’s Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED. The default entered on 11/13/19 is vacated. The Court accepts Defendant’s answer and cross-complaint filed on 8/25/20.

This is an action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Plaintiffs Martin Analco, Carmen Martinez, Alberto Analco, and Fernando Analco are residents of 11224 Tamarack Avenue, Pacoima, California 91331, owned by Defendant Pedro Castillo. Plaintiffs allege that they were forced to live under unhabitable conditions as a result of Defendant’s negligent conduct. Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action: (1) negligent breach of implied warranty of habitability, (2) nuisance, (3) breach of the implied covenant of quiet use and enjoyment, and (4) negligent violation of statutory duty.

On 11/13/19, default was entered against Defendant. On 8/25/20, prior to default judgment being entered, Defendant, self-represented, filed an answer and a cross-complaint against the plaintiffs for (1) fraud for monetary gain, (2) emotional distress, (3) assumption of risk, and (4) contributory negligence. Defendant’s answer and cross-complaint was filed without Defendant seeking prior leave of court. On 10/30/20, Defendant filed the subject motion to vacate default and default judgment. The motion is unopposed.

Defendant moves to vacate the default entered against him on grounds Plaintiffs improperly served Defendant at an address where he did not reside at the time of service. Defendant attests that he lived at the address located at 12514 Herrick Avenue in Sylmar, California. Castillo Decl., ¶ 2. Defendant contends that he is entitled to relief since service did not result in actual notice to Defendant in time to defend the action. Alternatively, Defendant argues that he is entitled to relief on the grounds of extrinsic fraud or mistake, and he has shown a diligence in seeking relief once he obtained knowledge in August 2020 that default had been entered against him. (Castillo Decl., ¶ 1.)

The Court first addresses Defendant’s contentions that he did not receive actual notice in time to defend the action.

“When service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action and a default or default judgment has been entered against him or her in the action, he or she may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action. The notice of motion shall be served and filed within a reasonable time, but in no event exceeding the earlier of: (i) two years after entry of a default judgment against him or her; or (ii) 180 days after service on him or her of a written notice that the default or default judgment has been entered.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd. (a).)

Here, Defendant attests that he first heard about Plaintiffs complaint in August of 2020. (Castillo Decl., ¶ 1.) The Court notes that the proof of service of summons and complaint filed by Plaintiffs on February 1, 2018, states that Defendant was personally served on 1/12/18 at 11224 Tamarack Ave. Pacoima, CA 91331 by Sheriff Deputy Dirk J. Behrens. Defendant states that he did not receive any correspondence at 11224 Tamarack Ave., and did not live at the location at that time. (Castillo Decl., ¶ 2.)

The burden of proving the existence of jurisdiction is always the plaintiff’s burden. Therefore, even though Defendant is the moving party, the burden is on the plaintiffs to show facts requisite to an effective service. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)

The proof of service of summons filed by Plaintiffs on 2/1/18 does not show that the server was a registered process server to establish a presumption to place the burden on Defendant to show that service was not properly effectuated. Cal. Evid. Code, § 647. Plaintiffs have failed to file an opposition to this motion, and thus, have failed to carry its burden of showing facts that Defendant was properly served with due process.

As the Court finds that Defendant’s motion to vacate default under the circumstances is supported by this “statute’s long-standing “remedial” purpose of promoting the determination of actions on their merits. (Thompson v. Sutton (1942) 50 Cal.App.2d 272, 276, citing Nicoll v. Weldon (1900) 130 Cal. 666, 667.)

Accordingly, the default entered against Defendant is vacated. The Court accepts Defendant’s answer and cross-complaint filed on 8/25/20.

The moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC655073    Hearing Date: July 22, 2020    Dept: 29

Analco v. Castillo

On 6/17/20, the Court issued an order declining to grant Plaintiffs’ request for Court Judgment citing numerous defects. Plaintiffs were ordered to correct the defects and resubmit a Request for Court Judgment by 7/15/20.

The Court’s file reflects that Plaintiffs did not resubmit their default judgment package as ordered. Accordingly, the Court continues the OSC re Entry of Default Judgment or Dismissal to 9/4/20 at 8:30 a.m. in Department SS-29. Plaintiff is ordered to submit the amended Request for Court Judgment by 8/21/20.