Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV35035, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35035    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On September 23, 2021, Plaintiff GS Mart, LLC initiated this unlawful detainer action against Defendant Hae Won Yoon dba LA Plaza Shop. The case came on for a bench trial on July 12, 2022, and Defendant did not appear. On August 3, 2022, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff.

            On August 26, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion to set aside the judgment on the grounds that he was not served with the notice of trial.

LEGAL STANDARD

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant claims that he lacked notice of the trial because the notice was served to 600 E. Washington Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90015, without specifying a suite number. Defendant claims that because the notice was addressed to the entire building, he never received it. (Yoon Decl. ¶ 2.)

            However, Defendant himself listed his address as 600 E. Washington Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90015, without specifying a suite number. (Plntf.’s Ex. 1 [substitution of attorney].) “In any case pending before the court, the court will use the mailing address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address that an attorney or unrepresented party provides on the first document filed in that case as the mailing address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of record unless the attorney or unrepresented party files a notice under (b).” (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 8.32(a).) The first time that Defendant represented his address was on the May 9, 2022 substitution of attorney, wherein he replaced his prior attorney and began representing himself in propia persona. There is no indication that Defendant notified the court of an address change or ever represented his address as anything other than 600 E. Washington Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90015 prior to this motion. Thus, the notice of trial was properly served.

            “[S]ervice is complete at the time the document is deposited in the mail . . . [and] the sender does not have the burden of showing the notice was actually received by the addressee.” (Silver v. McNamee (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 269, 283.) “[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper,” so long as the service complies with statutory requirements. (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1441.) Here, the service of the notice of trial complied with statutory requirements, and Defendant fails to rebut the presumption of valid service.  

            The court does not find it credible that defendant did not receive actual notice of the trial.  On April 5, 2022, the court served notice to Defendant that it had set a status re bankruptcy and trial setting conference for April 26, 2022.  Defendant failed to appear at this status conference.  At the status conference of April 26, 2022, the court was advised that Defendant failed to appear for its creditor’s meeting, and the bankruptcy was dismissed.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to set aside judgment is DENIED.