This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/13/2019 at 05:23:09 (UTC).

STEPHANIE ROSALES VS CHAWAPOT THOONGSUWAN

Case Summary

On 08/17/2017 STEPHANIE ROSALES filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CHAWAPOT THOONGSUWAN. 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:

    ****2633

  • Filing Date:

    08/17/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • 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

ROSALES STEPHANIE

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-20

THOONGSUWAN CHAWAPOT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICE OF SERGEI N. GLADKOV

GLADKOV SERGEI ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

1/31/2019: Minute Order

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

2/13/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Personal Service

2/13/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Minute Order

2/19/2019: Minute Order

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

8/17/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

Unknown

8/17/2017: Unknown

SUMMONS

8/17/2017: SUMMONS

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/19/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Stephanie Rosales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Stephanie Rosales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2017
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Stephanie Rosales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC672633    Hearing Date: December 02, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND SET ASIDE DEFAULT

On August 17, 2017, plaintiff Stephanie Rosales (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Chawapot Thoongsuwan (“Defendant”) alleging motor vehicle negligence. On February 13, 2019, default was entered against Defendant. Defendant seeks to quash the service of summons and set aside the default on grounds that he was not personally served with the complaint or summons. Plaintiff did not oppose.

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.)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), the court may “set aside any void judgment or order.” Under section 473.5, subdivision (a), 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. 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd. (a).)

Defendant submits his declaration stating he was not served on December 17, 2017, and no longer resided at 940 N. Walnut Avenue, San Dimas, California. On that day, he was at morning services at the Wat Thai of Los Angeles Buddhist Temple in North Hollywood. He states that he attended services to pay homage for Buddha for his birthday and stayed after services to prepare lunch for the monks. Defendant further states that his first notice of the lawsuit was when an attorney for his insurance company asked if he had been served and if he received any legal paperwork in regard to this lawsuit.

The Court finds that Defendant has rebutted the presumption that service was proper and that Defendant lacked actual notice of the complaint and summons. Defendant’s unopposed motion to quash service of summons and set aside the default is GRANTED.

The OSC re dismissal for failure to obtain a default judgment is discharged. Trial is set for July 31, 2020. The Final Status Conference is set for July 17, 2020.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.