Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV28247, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV28247    Hearing Date: November 3, 2023    Dept: 74

Elvir Babakhanloo v. Karen Bagdoyan, et al.

Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment.

The court considered the moving papers and opposition. No reply was timely filed.

BACKGROUND 

            On July 27, 2020, Plaintiff Elvir Babakhanloo (Plaintiff) filed a complaint alleging malicious prosecution against Defendant Hayk Grigoryan (Defendant).

            On December 5, 2022, default was entered against Defendant.

            On March September 21, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to set aside the default.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Within two years of default, a defendant may obtain relief by showing “lack of notice” of the proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd. (a).) “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION 

            Defendant aims to set aside the default entered against him. On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service indicating Defendant was personally served at the following address: 6320 Canoga Avenue Woodland Hills, CA 91367. Defendant claims “no evidence in the universe” connects him to that address. But Plaintiff has provided a letter from Defendant that identifies the address as his place of business. (Keropian Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. 1.) The court denied Defendant’s prior March 23 motion to set aside the default because Defendant could not reconcile the letter with his assertion that he was not affiliated with the address at issue. However, the court denied the motion without prejudice to filing this renewed motion with reliable evidence addressing the issue. Defendant’s renewed motion ignores the existence of the letter discussed during the hearing on Defendant’s previous motion to vacate. Instead, Defendant now contends identity thieves used his name. (Grigoryan Decl., ¶ 23.) He also claims documents support his contention, but those documents are not attached to his motion or declaration. In addition, Defendant has not attached to the copy of the motion filed with the court a copy of his proposed answer (although it appears he may have served his answer on Plaintiff.) (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (b).)

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court denies Defendant’s motion to set aside his default and the default judgment entered against him.