Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV02528, Date: 2024-07-19 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 23GDCV02528    Hearing Date: July 19, 2024    Dept: E

Hearing Date: 07/19/2024        

Case No: 23GDCV02528        

Trial Date: UNSET

Case Name: BANKERS HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC v. NAIERI PENDAR

 

[TENTATIVE RULING–SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT]

RELIEF REQUESTED¿ 
“Defendants, NAIERI PENDAR, by and through its attorney of record, Dublas Paniagua, Esq., hereby move for an Order to Set Aside the Default and Default Judgment pursuant to CCP §473.5, and to Quash Service of Summons due to lack of jurisdiction pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §473.5.. This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the papers and pleadings on file in this action, and such other papers, pleadings, and arguments as this Court shall admit.”

 

(Def. Mot. p. 1-2.)

 

[The Court notes that it appears as if there is only one defendant, and not defendant(s), as the notice indicates.]

 

PROCEDURAL
Moving Party: Defendant, Naieri Pendar
Responding Party: Plaintiff, Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC


16/21 Day Lapse (CCP § 12c and § 1005(b): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a): Ok

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Pendar Declaration; Fernandez Declaration;

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Summer Dos Santos Declaration; Carole Alegre-Thiry Declaration; Jaime Mariscal Declaration; Richard L. Weiner Declaration;

Reply Papers: Reply

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff filed the instant action on 11/30/2023. On 2/14/2024, default was entered. On 04/17/2024, default judgment was entered.

Under CCP § 473.5:

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.

(CCP § 473.5(a).)

Timeliness
“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.” (CCP § 473.5(a).)

Here, Defendant’s motion to set aside default and default judgment was filed and electronically served on 5/21/2024.

The default judgment was entered on 4/17/2024, and this motion was served and filed on 5/21/2024. Defendant’s declaration states, “On or about April 3, 2024, I received via USPS mail a letter from the Law Offices of Richard L. Weiner. When I opened the mail, I noticed that it  was a request to enter a default against me for a lawsuit that I was not aware of. This was the first time that I became aware of this lawsuit.” (Pendar Decl. ¶ 3.)

Thus here, Defendant first became aware of the lawsuit on 4/3/2024 based on receiving the request to enter default, which was before the default judgment was entered on 4/17/2024. Therefore, Defendant’s motion does not exceed 180 days after service on him or her of a written notice that the default or default judgment has been entered. This motion is thus timely.

Lack of Actual Notice
As stated in CCP § 473.5(b):

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(b).)

Here, Defendant’s declaration shows that Defendant’s lack of actual notice was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect.

As previously stated in the Pendar Declaration in ¶ 3, Defendant first became aware of the lawsuit on April 3, 2024 when opening mail that included the request to enter default. Pendar explains that even though the proof of sub-service of the summons and complaint indicates service on a Caucasian woman, 50-60 years of age, with blonde/grey hair, Defendant does not know who this person is. (See Pendar Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant resides with their partner, Sheena Fernandez, who is 42 years of age and has short brunette hair. (Pendar Decl. ¶ 4.) Pendar states that neither Pendar nor Fernandez is 50-60 years of age with blond/grey hair. (Pendar Decl. ¶ 4.) While Pendar says that there is an attached Exhibit A with Pendar and Fernandez’s driver’s licenses to show what the two look like, Pendar did not attach an Exhibit A with driver’s licenses.

Defendant also attaches the declaration of partner, Sheena Fernandez. Fernandez states that both her and Pendar live alone and no one else resides with them. (Fernandez Decl. ¶ 3.) Fernandez also reviewed the proof of service and states that she does not know who the 50-60 year old Caucasian woman with blonde/grey hair is who allegedly received the proof of service. (Fernandez Decl. ¶ 4.)

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant and Sheena Fernandez expressly admit to residing at the address where Defendant was sub-served.

However, the Court finds this argument unavailing. Even if those declarations admit that Defendant resided where sub-service occurs, that does not prove actual notice. CCP § 473.5 deals with actual notice.

Further, Plaintiff argues that sub-service was done in a code-compliant manner under CCP § 415.20.

Again, Plaintiff’s argument is unavailing. The standard set forth in CCP § 473.5 deals with actual notice, not whether the service was code-compliant.

“The phrase ‘actual notice’ in section 473.5 ‘means genuine knowledge of the party litigant and does not contemplate notice imputed to a principal from an attorney’s actual notice.’” (Tunis v. Barrow (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1069, 1077 citing Rosenthal v. Garner (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 891, 895.)

Here, Defendant’s declaration indicates that Defendant did not have genuine knowledge, or actual notice, of service of a summons and complaint.

“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.” (CCP § 473.5(c).)

Here, the motion was timely made. Further, the moving declaration of Pendar and Fernandez indicate that Pendar did not have actual notice of the action and nothing in the declarations indicate that the lack of actual notice was caused by Defendant’s avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect. Although Defendant did not attach the driver’s licenses like it alleged, Pendar’s declaration states that Pendar and their partner are not 50-60 years of age with blonde/grey hair.

 

TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant’s motion to set aside the default and default judgment is GRANTED. The Court notes that Defendant’s notice also sought to quash service of summons but no argument was brought to quash service of summons. This motion only asserted arguments with respect to CCP § 473.5, and 473.5 does not mention anything about quashing service of summons. CCP § 473.5 only mentions setting aside the default or default judgment.

“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(b).)

Here, the motion itself contained Defendant’s proposed Answer. However, there is no proof of service indicating that the proposed answer was served.