This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/13/2021 at 14:43:43 (UTC).

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS NICOLE TEAGUE

Case Summary

On 02/20/2018 WELLS FARGO BANK, N A filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against NICOLE TEAGUE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RAMONA G. SEE, DEIRDRE HILL and DAVID J. COWAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2687

  • Filing Date:

    02/20/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RAMONA G. SEE

DEIRDRE HILL

DAVID J. COWAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.

Defendant

TEAGUE NICOLE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

COLLECTION AT LAW INC. A.P.C.

BLANDA JON O

Defendant Attorney

COLULA MONCADA LUIS ALBERTO

 

Court Documents

Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

2/26/2019: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE NOTICE OF RELATED CASES: MCCULLOUGH V. DUPLER ...)

5/16/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE NOTICE OF RELATED CASES: MCCULLOUGH V. DUPLER ...)

Notice of Motion

10/9/2020: Notice of Motion

Declaration - DECLARATION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

10/14/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

10/14/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

10/22/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS, SET ASIDE DEFA...) OF 10/30/2020

10/30/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS, SET ASIDE DEFA...) OF 10/30/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS, SET ASIDE DEFA...)

10/30/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS, SET ASIDE DEFA...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PROOF OF ...)

1/14/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PROOF OF ...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PROOF OF ...) OF 01/14/2021

1/14/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PROOF OF ...) OF 01/14/2021

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/11/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Case Management Statement

2/23/2021: Case Management Statement

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

3/10/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PROOF OF ...)

3/15/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PROOF OF ...)

Case Management Statement

4/21/2021: Case Management Statement

Declaration re: Attorney's Fees

5/4/2021: Declaration re: Attorney's Fees

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

5/4/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

5/4/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

24 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/16/2022
  • Hearing11/16/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2022
  • Hearing11/09/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2022
  • Hearing07/08/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Post-Mediation Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2022
  • Hearing03/03/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Case Management Conference) of 10/14/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by NICOLE TEAGUE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
49 More Docket Entries
  • 06/28/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2018
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketOSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • DocketDefault Entered; Filed by WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; (OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2018
  • DocketOSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC072687    Hearing Date: October 30, 2020    Dept: M

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. M

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

YC072687

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

NICOLE TEAGUE,

Defendant.

Hearing Date: October 30, 2020

Moving Parties: Defendant Nicole Teague

Responding Party: Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Set Aside Default Judgment

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On February 20, 2018, Wells Fargo Bank filed a complaint against Nicole Teague.

On May 11, 2018, a default was entered against defendant.

On July 11, 2018, a default judgment was entered against defendant.

On October 9, 2020, defendant filed the herein motion.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Vacate default judgment

CCP §473.5(a) states, in relevant part: “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.”

The phrase “actual notice” means “genuine knowledge of the party litigant” and does not include constructive or imputed notice to the client. Tunis v. Barrow (1986) 184 Cal. App. 3d 1069, 1077.

CCP §473.5(b) requires that “a notice of motion to set aside a default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action shall designate as the time for making the motion a date prescribed by subdivision (b) of Section 1005, and it 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. The party shall serve and file with the notice a copy of the answer, motion, or other pleading proposed to be filed in the action.”

CCP §473.5(c) allows “upon a finding by the court that the motion was made within the period permitted by subdivision (a) and that his or her lack of actual notice in time to defend the action was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect, it may set aside the default or default judgment on whatever terms as may be just and allow the party to defend the action.”

“[A] default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.” Dill v. Berquist (1994) 24 Cal. App. 4th 1426, 1444. “Where a party moves under section 473(d) to set aside ‘a judgment that, though valid on its face, is void for lack of proper service, the courts have adopted by analogy the statutory period for relief from a default judgment’ provided by section 473.5, that is, the two-year outer limit.” Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal. App. 4th 175, 180 (citations omitted). “Thus, defendant cannot assert under section 473(d) that the judgment, although facially valid, is void for lack of service.” Id. at 181.

Quash service of summons

A defendant may serve and file a notice of motion to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. CCP § 418.10(a). Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 provides the exclusive procedure for challenging personal jurisdiction at the outset. Roy v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 337, 342. Although defendant is the moving party, the burden of proof is on plaintiff to defeat the motion by establishing that jurisdictional grounds exist. Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal. App. 3d 703, 710.

Under Evidence Code § 647, “[t]he return of a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of 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.” Under Evidence Code § 604, “[t]he effect of a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence is to require the trier of fact to assume the existence of the presumed fact unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence, in which case the trier of fact shall determine the existence or nonexistence of the presumed fact from the evidence and without regard to the presumption. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the drawing of any inference that may be appropriate.”

DISCUSSION

Defendant requests that the court vacate the default judgment entered against her on July 11, 2018, pursuant to CCP §473.5 and to quash service of the summons and complaint. Defendant contends that she was not properly served with the summons and complaint and thus, she lacked actual notice in time to defend the action.

The proof of service of the summons and complaint filed indicates that defendant was personally served at 167 Via La Circula, Redondo Beach, on March 14, 2018, at 7:14 p.m. on a white, female between the ages of 36-40 with blond and hazel eyes weighing approximately 131-160 lbs. between 5’4”-5’7”, by a registered process server.

Defendant states in her declaration that she was living alone on March 14, 2018, and that she was out of town on March 14, 2018, attending a horse competition called HITS Coachella Desert Circuit VII. She states that she rented and stayed at a home in Indio from March 4, 2018 to March 26, 2018, and that she did not return home to Redondo Beach at any time during this period. She states that she is 5’0” with brown eyes. She attached a copy of her driver’s license, statement of account showing that her horse participated in the horse competition on March 4, 6-11, and 13-18, and a “move-out inspection” of her stay in Indio.

In opposition, plaintiff argues that the motion should be denied because defendant was properly served. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to rebut the presumption. Further, defendant purportedly contacted plaintiff’s counsel’s office on October 16, 2019 and October 28, 2019, where she acknowledged receiving the request for entry of default. On November 1, 2019, plaintiff’s counsel was instructed by plaintiff Wells Fargo to accept defendant’s offer to settle the case for $22,000. On November 13, 2019, plaintiff’s counsel sent a settlement agreement to defendant, which was never signed by her. On January 27, 2020, defendant contacted plaintiff’s counsel and offered to settle the matter for $18,000. Plaintiff instructed plaintiff’s counsel to accept this offer and to send to defendant a settlement agreement, which she did not sign.

Plaintiff also argues that the motion was filed untimely.

Although the court finds that defendant has met her burden of presenting sufficient evidence that service of summons did not result in actual notice in time to defend the action, the motion was filed untimely. It was filed more than two years after entry of a default judgment against her.

The motion is thus DENIED, including defendant’s request to quash the service of summons.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a litigant