Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/20/2019 at 02:22:51 (UTC).

MOUNTAIN STATES COMMERCIAL COLLECTIONS INC VS DEONTAY POTTER

Case Summary

On 08/14/2017 MOUNTAIN STATES COMMERCIAL COLLECTIONS INC filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against DEONTAY POTTER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MICHAEL JOHNSON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2175

  • Filing Date:

    08/14/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MICHAEL JOHNSON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MOUNTAIN STATES COMMERCIAL COLLECTIONS

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 100

POTTER DEONTAY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

GUERRINI JOHN D. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

1/30/2018: NOTICE OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

Minute Order

2/28/2018: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF JOHN D. GUERRINI RE: STATUS OF BANKRUPTCY

7/16/2018: DECLARATION OF JOHN D. GUERRINI RE: STATUS OF BANKRUPTCY

Unknown

7/16/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

8/15/2018: Minute Order

Declaration

11/20/2018: Declaration

Minute Order

12/19/2018: Minute Order

Declaration

4/23/2019: Declaration

Unknown

4/23/2019: Unknown

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

12/8/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Minute Order

12/14/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

11/14/2017: Unknown

Unknown

11/14/2017: Unknown

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/14/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

10/31/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

8/25/2017: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

8/25/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO REPAY PROMISSORY NOTE

8/14/2017: COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO REPAY PROMISSORY NOTE

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 56; Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Declaration (RE: BANKRUPTCY STATUS); Filed by MOUNTAIN STATES COMMERCIAL COLLECTIONS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • at 08:31 AM in Department 56; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • Minute Order ((Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2018
  • Declaration (of John D. Guerrini Re: Bankruptcy Status); Filed by MOUNTAIN STATES COMMERCIAL COLLECTIONS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 56; Status Conference (Status Conference; Proceeding continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-08-15 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2018
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
24 More Docket Entries
  • 11/14/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by MOUNTAIN STATES COMMERCIAL COLLECTIONS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by MOUNTAIN STATES COMMERCIAL COLLECTIONS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO REPAY PROMISSORY NOTE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC672175    Hearing Date: July 29, 2020    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOUNTAIN STATES COMMERCIAL COLLECTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DEONTAY POTTER, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: BC672175

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Date: July 29, 2020

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Deontay Potter

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Mountain States Commercial Collections, Inc.

The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

On August 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants arising from the alleged failure to pay monies owed pursuant to a promissory note. The complaint does not explicitly allege any causes of action and only recites factual allegations.

On December 8, 2017, default was entered against Defendant. On December 4, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to set aside the default and, in the alternative, the default judgment entered against him[1]. Defendant contends that: (1) a judgment was entered against him due to his surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect; and (2) he never received notice of this action because he was not at home on the date and time that personal service was allegedly effectuated.

Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s motion on the grounds that: (1) Defendant was properly served with process via personal service; (2) Defendant has failed to rebut the presumptions raised by the process server’s declaration and he is not entitled to relief; (3) Defendant is not entitled to relief pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473(b); and (4) Defendant has failed to raise any viable grounds for relief pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473.5 and has acknowledged receiving service of process.

DISCUSSION

California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473.5(a) says that “[w]hen 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.” According to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473.5(a), a party seeking relief from default or default judgment must file a notice of motion “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 against him or her.” California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473.5(b) says that a motion to set aside default or default judgment “shall be accompanied by an affidavit showing under oath that the party’s lack of actual notice in time to defend the action was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect.” California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473(b) empowers a court to “relieve a party . . . from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” California Civil Code, Section 3527 says that “[t]he law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights.”

Issue No.1: Lack of Actual Notice to Defendant

Defendant contends that he was not served personally with the summons and complaint, and thus was not given the opportunity to respond with respect to this action. Defendant argues that he was not at his second residence address on the date and time as alleged in Plaintiff’s proof of service.

“A motion for relief under section 473 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and an appellate court will not interfere unless there is a clear showing of an abuse.” (Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 892, 904.) “The statute is remedial and should be applied liberally to carry out the policy of permitting trial on the merits, but the moving party has the burden of showing good cause.” (Id.) “The filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper. However, the presumption arises only if the proof of service complies with the applicable statutory requirements.” (Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795.) “[P]ersonal service means service that is accomplished by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served.” (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 389.) “[P]roof of service made pursuant to section 415.10 may be made by affidavit of the person making the service showing the time, place, and manner of service and the facts showing that service was made in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions.” (Id. at 390.) “The affidavit shall recite or in other manner show the name of the person to whom the papers served were delivered and, if appropriate, the title of the person or the capacity in which the person was served.” (Id.) “Evidence Code section 647 provides that a registered process server’s declaration of service establishes a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence of the facts stated in the declaration.” (Id.) A trial court does not have “to accept . . . self-serving evidence contradicting the process server’s declaration.” (Id.)

Defendant’s Evidence

In his declaration accompanying his motion, Defendant declares that: (1) on or about November 21, 2019, he became aware that a default/default judgment had been entered against him without his knowledge (Potter Decl. at ¶ 2); (2) he is requesting that the Court grant his motion because he was never served with a summons, complaint, or any other document with respect to this case (Id. at ¶ 3); (3) he had a process server assist him with getting a Court copy of the proof of service of summons filed by Plaintiff (Id. at ¶ 4); (4) Plaintiff’s proof of service alleges that a summons and a complaint was served on October 24, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. to him personally at his second residence located at 45805 Via Corona, Indian Wells, CA 92210 (the “Service Address”) (Id. at ¶5); (5) that is impossible because he was not home on that date and time of the alleged personal service, nor was anyone home on October 24, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. (Id.); (6) he never received a copy of the complaint in this matter and, as a result, he was never given the opportunity to defend himself in this action (Id. at ¶ 6); (7) had he been served he would have answered to the Court promptly (Id. at ¶ 7); (8) he has strong evidence and strong oral arguments to defend his case at trial and he believes he can prevail (Id. at ¶ 9); and (9) he wants a chance to defend himself at trial. (Id. at ¶ 10.)

In his declaration accompanying his reply brief, Defendant relevantly declares that: (1) by citing CCP Section 473.5 in his opening brief, he may have mistakenly created the impression that he was acknowledging receiving service of process in October of 2017 but he did not receive service of process (Potter Reply Decl. at ¶ 3); (2) in October 2017, he was not living at the residence at which he was allegedly served and as such he never received any notice of this action in order to respond in a timely fashion (Id.); (3) he did not receive the pleadings that were mailed in November and December of 2017 and he did not become aware of Plaintiff’s claim until January of 2018, at which time this action was stayed because he was in bankruptcy (Id. at ¶ 4); (4) he is seeking relief from default judgment because he disputes the amount of Plaintiff’s claim and he is asking that this case be decided on the merits and not upon his naivete as a litigant (Id. at ¶ 5); (5) he is requesting a short continuance of 30 to 60 days on the hearing on the motion in order to retain counsel to represent him (Id. at ¶ 6); (6) he does not believe that Plaintiff will be prejudiced by a short continuance (Id.); and (7) if given the opportunity to hire counsel and respond, he believes that this case can be resolved expeditiously. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s Evidence in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion

According to the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Ryan M. Arakawa (“Arakawa”): (1) the proof of service shows that Defendant was personally served with process at his admitted residence located at 45805 Via Corona, Indian Wells, California 92210 (the “Service Address”) (Arakawa Decl. at ¶ 5 and Exhibit 1); (2) numerous case related documents were served on Defendant at the service address (Id. at ¶¶ 6-11 and Exhibits 2-7); and (3) as of the date of his declaration, none of the documents described in Exhibits 2 through 7 were returned to Gaba Guerrini Law Corporation. (Id. at ¶ 13.)

Analysis

The proof of service of summons attached as Exhibit 1 to Arakawa’s declaration is instructive. The proof of service indicates that Defendant was served with a copy of the summons and complaint via personal service at the Service Address. (Arakawa Decl. at Exhibit 1.) The proof of service shows that Defendant was served on October 24, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. (Id.) The proof of service indicates that a registered process server, V. Curiel, effectuated service and V. Curiel declared under the penalty of perjury that the proof of service is true and correct.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to rebut the presumption that service of the summons and complaint was proper. Defendant’s declaration merely states that: (1) he was not at the Service Address the time service was effectuated; (2) no one else was at the Service Address when service was effectuated; and (3) he never received a copy of the complaint in this action. Pursuant to Zara, the Court is not required to accept Defendant’s self-serving declaration. Furthermore, although Defendant moved for relief pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473.5, Defendant has not provided the Court with facts showing that his lack of notice about this action was not due to his avoidance of service or excusable neglect. Defendant also does not come within the scope of relief pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473(b) because he has not provided the Court with sufficient evidence of any mistake, surprise, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Service was accomplished properly pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 415.10. As indicated above, Defendant has failed to rebut the presumption that service was proper. Defendant conceded via his declaration that the Service Address is in fact one of his residences. Defendant has not provided this Court with a basis for relief pursuant to either California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 473.5 or 473(b).

Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to set aside the default entered against him on December 8, 2017.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVIC-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by CourtCall if the parties do not submit on the tentative.  If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 29th day of July 2020

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] Default judgment has not yet been entered against Defendant. Plaintiff only submitted a default judgment packet which is still pending and has not been ruled upon by this Court.

Case Number: BC672175    Hearing Date: June 25, 2020    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOUNTAIN STATES COMMERCIAL COLLECTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DEONTAY POTTER, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: BC672175

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Date: June 25, 2020

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Deontay Potter

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Mountain States Commercial Collections, Inc.

The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. Defendant’s reply brief was not filed with an accompanying proof of service. Defendant is to provide the Court with a filed proof of service in connection thereto and the Court will discuss the effect, if any, such filed proof of service has on its ruling.

BACKGROUND

On August 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants arising from the alleged failure to pay monies owed pursuant to a promissory note. The complaint does not explicitly allege any causes of action and only recites factual allegations.

On December 8, 2017, default was entered against Defendant. On December 4, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to set aside the default and, in the alternative, the default judgment entered against him[1]. Defendant contends that: (1) a judgment was entered against him due to his surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect; and (2) he never received notice of this action because he was not at home on the date and time that personal service was allegedly effectuated.

Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s motion on the grounds that: (1) Defendant was properly served with process via personal service; (2) Defendant has failed to rebut the presumptions raised by the process server’s declaration and he is not entitled to relief; (3) Defendant is not entitled to relief pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473(b); and (4) Defendant has failed to raise any viable grounds for relief pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473.5 and has acknowledged receiving service of process.

DISCUSSION

California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473.5(a) says that “[w]hen 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.” According to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473.5(a), a party seeking relief from default or default judgment must file a notice of motion “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 against him or her.” California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473.5(b) says that a motion to set aside default or default judgment “shall be accompanied by an affidavit showing under oath that the party’s lack of actual notice in time to defend the action was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect.” California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473(b) empowers a court to “relieve a party . . . from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” California Civil Code, Section 3527 says that “[t]he law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights.”

Issue No.1: Lack of Actual Notice to Defendant

Defendant contends that he was not served personally with the summons and complaint, and thus was not given the opportunity to respond with respect to this action. Defendant argues that he was not at his second residence address on the date and time as alleged in Plaintiff’s proof of service.

“A motion for relief under section 473 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and an appellate court will not interfere unless there is a clear showing of an abuse.” (Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 892, 904.) “The statute is remedial and should be applied liberally to carry out the policy of permitting trial on the merits, but the moving party has the burden of showing good cause.” (Id.) “The filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper. However, the presumption arises only if the proof of service complies with the applicable statutory requirements.” (Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795.) “[P]ersonal service means service that is accomplished by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served.” (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 389.) “[P]roof of service made pursuant to section 415.10 may be made by affidavit of the person making the service showing the time, place, and manner of service and the facts showing that service was made in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions.” (Id. at 390.) “The affidavit shall recite or in other manner show the name of the person to whom the papers served were delivered and, if appropriate, the title of the person or the capacity in which the person was served.” (Id.) “Evidence Code section 647 provides that a registered process server’s declaration of service establishes a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence of the facts stated in the declaration.” (Id.) A trial court does not have “to accept . . . self-serving evidence contradicting the process server’s declaration.” (Id.)

Defendant’s Evidence

In his declaration accompanying his motion, Defendant declares that: (1) on or about November 21, 2019, he became aware that a default/default judgment had been entered against him without his knowledge (Potter Decl. at ¶ 2); (2) he is requesting that the Court grant his motion because he was never served with a summons, complaint, or any other document with respect to this case (Id. at ¶ 3); (3) he had a process server assist him with getting a Court copy of the proof of service of summons filed by Plaintiff (Id. at ¶ 4); (4) Plaintiff’s proof of service alleges that a summons and a complaint was served on October 24, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. to him personally at his second residence located at 45805 Via Corona, Indian Wells, CA 92210 (the “Service Address”) (Id. at ¶5); (5) that is impossible because he was not home on that date and time of the alleged personal service, nor was anyone home on October 24, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. (Id.); (6) he never received a copy of the complaint in this matter and, as a result, he was never given the opportunity to defend himself in this action (Id. at ¶ 6); (7) had he been served he would have answered to the Court promptly (Id. at ¶ 7); (8) he has strong evidence and strong oral arguments to defend his case at trial and he believes he can prevail (Id. at ¶ 9); and (9) he wants a chance to defend himself at trial. (Id. at ¶ 10.)

In his declaration accompanying his reply brief, Defendant relevantly declares that: (1) by citing CCP Section 473.5 in his opening brief, he may have mistakenly created the impression that he was acknowledging receiving service of process in October of 2017 but he did not receive service of process (Potter Reply Decl. at ¶ 3); (2) in October 2017, he was not living at the residence at which he was allegedly served and as such he never received any notice of this action in order to respond in a timely fashion (Id.); (3) he did not receive the pleadings that were mailed in November and December of 2017 and he did not become aware of Plaintiff’s claim until January of 2018, at which time this action was stayed because he was in bankruptcy (Id. at ¶ 4); (4) he is seeking relief from default judgment because he disputes the amount of Plaintiff’s claim and he is asking that this case be decided on the merits and not upon his naivete as a litigant (Id. at ¶ 5); (5) he is requesting a short continuance of 30 to 60 days on the hearing on the motion in order to retain counsel to represent him (Id. at ¶ 6); (6) he does not believe that Plaintiff will be prejudiced by a short continuance (Id.); and (7) if given the opportunity to hire counsel and respond, he believes that this case can be resolved expeditiously. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s Evidence in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion

According to the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Ryan M. Arakawa (“Arakawa”): (1) the proof of service shows that Defendant was personally served with process at his admitted residence located at 45805 Via Corona, Indian Wells, California 92210 (the “Service Address”) (Arakawa Decl. at ¶ 5 and Exhibit 1); (2) numerous case related documents were served on Defendant at the service address (Id. at ¶¶ 6-11 and Exhibits 2-7); and (3) as of the date of his declaration, none of the documents described in Exhibits 2 through 7 were returned to Gaba Guerrini Law Corporation. (Id. at ¶ 13.)

Analysis

The proof of service of summons attached as Exhibit 1 to Arakawa’s declaration is instructive. The proof of service indicates that Defendant was served with a copy of the summons and complaint via personal service at the Service Address. (Arakawa Decl. at Exhibit 1.) The proof of service shows that Defendant was served on October 24, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. (Id.) The proof of service indicates that a registered process server, V. Curiel, effectuated service and V. Curiel declared under the penalty of perjury that the proof of service is true and correct.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to rebut the presumption that service of the summons and complaint was proper. Defendant’s declaration merely states that: (1) he was not at the Service Address the time service was effectuated; (2) no one else was at the Service Address when service was effectuated; and (3) he never received a copy of the complaint in this action. Pursuant to Zara, the Court is not required to accept Defendant’s self-serving declaration. Furthermore, although Defendant moved for relief pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473.5, Defendant has not provided the Court with facts showing that his lack of notice about this action was not due to his avoidance of service or excusable neglect. Defendant also does not come within the scope of relief pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473(b) because he has not provided the Court with sufficient evidence of any mistake, surprise, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Service was accomplished properly pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 415.10. As indicated above, Defendant has failed to rebut the presumption that service was proper. Defendant conceded via his declaration that the Service Address is in fact one of his residences. Defendant has not provided this Court with a basis for relief pursuant to either California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 473.5 or 473(b).

Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to set aside the default entered against him on December 8, 2017.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVIC-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by CourtCall if the parties do not submit on the tentative.  If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 25th day of June 2020

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] Default judgment has not yet been entered against Defendant. Plaintiff only submitted a default judgment packet which is still pending and has not been ruled upon by this Court.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where MOUNTAIN STATES COMMERCIAL COLLECTIONS, INC., a corporation is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GUERRINI JOHN DONALD