Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV44852, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV44852, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44852 Hearing Date: June 28, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION FOR RELIEF

Hearing Date: 6/28/24

CASE NO./NAME: 20STCV44852 CANDICE A RAVANA vs ROIG CALIFORNIA LLC et al.

Moving Party: Defendant ROIG CALIFORNIA LLC

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION FOR RELIEF IS GRANTED.

Background

On November 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed her complaint against Defendants ROIC California LLC and TJX Incentive Sales Inc. On December 7, 2020, at 10:50 a.m, Plaintiff purportedly effectuated service on Defendant ROIC when Guillermo Contreras, Plaintiff’s process server personally served Stephen Eugene Jaycox, ROIC’s purported agent for service of process, with a copy of the Complaint and Summons, at 9 Sunset Ct., Novato, CA 94947. On August 21, 2023, a default judgment was entered against Defendant ROIC.

On May 24, 2024, Defendant ROIC filed a motion to vacate the default judgment or quash the service of summons on the basis that the address and individual allegedly personally served were not affiliated with Defendant. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion.

Motion to Quash

A defendant may move, “on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow” to quash the service of summons by alleging a lack of personal jurisdiction, or to dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10, subd. (a).) A motion to quash must be granted if the court finds that either (1) there is no basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant or (2) service on the defendant was improper. (Ziller Elecs. Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1229.)

“The return of a [registered] process server … establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.” (Evid. Code § 647.) “The filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper.” (Floveyor International, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795.) A summons may be served on a corporation by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint to the person designated as agent for service of process. CCP 416.10(a)

Plaintiff filed a statutory compliant proof of service indicating that the summons and complaint were personally served on an individual identified as an agent for service for Defendant on December 7, 2020 at 9 Sunset Ct., Novato, CA 94947. Defendant introduces evidence to challenge this presumption. Richard Schoebel, Chief Operating Officer of Defendant ROIC, declares that 9 Sunset Ct., Novato, CA 94947, is not a place of business or an address related to ROIC. In fact, it is a residence. Schoebel does not know who lives at or is related to that address. (Richard K. Schoebel Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition contesting the motion to quash or argue that the service was proper. Furthermore, the Court checked the Secretary of State filing for Defendant ROIC and did not find Stephen Eugene Jaycox or 9 Sunset Ct., Novato, CA 94947 to be associated with Defendant. The Court finds that Plaintiff did not effectuate proper service on Defendant; therefore, the present motion is granted.

Court’s Equitable Power for Relief

Defendant also points to Munoz v. Lopez, 275 Cal.App.2d 178, 181 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969), for the court to exercise its inherent equitable power to grant relief from a default judgment obtained through extrinsic fraud or mistake.

In Munoz, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to set aside the default and default judgment four years after it was entered. “A trial court has an inherent equity power under which, apart from statutory authority, it may grant relief from a default judgment obtained through extrinsic fraud or mistake.” (Munoz, 275 Cal.App.2d at 181.) While the grounds for an equitable action to set aside a default judgment are commonly stated as being those of extrinsic fraud or mistake, the terms are given a very broad meaning which tends to encompass all circumstances that deprive an adversary of fair notice of hearing whether or not those circumstances would qualify as fraudulent or mistaken in the strict sense. Thus, a false recital of service although not deliberate is treated as extrinsic fraud or mistake in the context of an equitable action to set aside a default judgment. (Id.)

Inherent in filing a motion on the ground that he had never been served with process is the implication that the recital of service in the purported affidavit and certificate of service is false. (Id.) As discussed in detail in the foregoing analysis for the motion to quash, the Court finds that the purported affidavit and proof of service for personal service of Defendant are false based on Richard Schoebel’s declaration, the Secretary of State filing, and the lack of an opposition alleging proper service. The Court thereby exercises its inherent equity power and grants Defendant relief from default judgment.

Defendant is ordered to file a responsive pleading within 30 days of today.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.