Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21GDCV00535, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV00535    Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT 3

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Ti Yeh

RESPONDING PARTY:       N/A

Defendant Ti Yeh’s Motion to Set Aside the Default and Default Judgment and Quashing Summons

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion. No opposition was filed.  

BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Derek Lee filed this action on April 20, 2021, against Defendant Ti Yeh.

         On January 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint. 

         On April 27, 2022, default was entered against Defendant.

         On July 1, 2022, default judgment was entered against Defendant. The court awarded Plaintiff $165,527.50 in damages, interest, and costs. 

         Defendant now moves to set aside the default and default judgment due to lack of service.  

DISCUSSION

“[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.] Thus, a default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void. [Citation.]” (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544 (“Ellard”).) “Under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 473, subdivision (d), the court may set aside a default judgment which is valid on its face, but void, as a matter of law, due to improper service.” (Ibid.)

         Code of Civil Procedure “Section 415.20, subdivision (b) governs substitute service on individuals. It provides, ‘If a copy of the summons and of the complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served ... a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and of the complaint at such person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint ... to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and of the complaint were left.’” (Ellard, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 545.)

Here, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service of Summons on February 24, 2022, providing that he served Defendant through substituted service on February 16, 2022, 5:36 PM, at 2049 Bluff Rd., Chino Hills, CA 91709.  The documents were left with “John Doe who Refused A Name (Gender: M Age: 35 Height: 6’0 Weight: 180 Race: Hispanic Hair: Black Other: Brown Eyes) Tenant in Property.” 

Defendant now argues service was improper because she moved out of the 2049 Bluff Road, Chino Hills address in December 2019. (Declaration of Ti Yeh, filed September 1, 2022 (“Yeh Decl.”), ¶ 2.) In fact, on December 13, 2019, the landlord for that address signed a move-out addendum, a copy of which is attached to her declaration as Exhibit 3. (Yeh Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff also visited Defendant at her new address at 63 Singer, Irvine, California 92620. (Yeh Decl., ¶¶ 3, 6.) In November 2020, Defendant moved to Taiwan, and when she came back to the United States around December 2021, she lived at 5144 Molino, Irvine, California 92618. (Yeh Decl., ¶ 9.) Therefore, Yeh never knew that there was any lawsuit filed against her until she received notices of levy from the sheriff’s department. (Yeh Decl., ¶ 15.)

The court finds that Defendant has demonstrated she was never served and that the default and default judgment entered against her are void. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendant’s  motion for relief from default and default judgment.

The court orders that the default and default judgment entered against Defendant Ti Yeh are hereby vacated. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 13, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court