TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Ketamine Healing Clinic of Los Angeles and David Mahjoubi’s Motion to Set Aside Default is DENIED.

Defendants Ketamine Healing Clinic of Los Angeles and David Mahjoubi to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendants Ketamine Healing Clinic of Los Angeles and David Mahjoubi (“Defendants”) move the Court for an order setting aside the default entered against them on November 27, 2024 on the ground that did not have notice of the summons and complaint prior to the entry of default, and they were unfamiliar with the statutes on subservice and calculating response deadlines for subservice, such that the default was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.

The proof of service filed on October 21, 2024 indicates that Defendant David Mahjoubi was served by substituted service on Jane Doe, a manager at 1762 Westwood Boulevard, #320, on October 14, 2024 by a registered California process server who provided a declaration of diligence, stating that three attempts to personally serve were made, and the individual who accepted service stated she was authorized to accept the documents, and the documents were mailed thereafter. The proof of service filed on October 21, 2024 indicates that Defendant Ketamine Healing Clinic of Los Angeles was served by substituted service in the same manner as service upon Defendant David Mahjoubi, the person authorized to accept service for the entity, and a declaration of mailing was also provided with this proof of service.

Defendants were each served by substituted service with the summons and complaint by a registered California process server, and Defendants do not dispute that they were properly served. Rather, Defendant Mahjoubi provides a declaration stating that he never received the summons and complaint (Mot., Mahjoubi Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3), but he does not state that the address is not Defendants’ business location or that he did not know the individual identified as Jane Doe.

Put simply, there is no basis to set aside the default here, as the motion and case docket tend to indicate that Defendants had notice of the action and the proceedings but chose not to participate. As to whether discretionary relief is proper, Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), provides that “[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party . . . from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Where a motion to set aside a default is based on a party’s mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, relief is discretionary, and Defendants must provide specific facts demonstrating a mistake, either of fact or of law. (See Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1410.) Any reference to a misunderstanding of the consequences of failing to respond to the complaint does not support setting aside the default here where there is no sworn statement as to this fact, nor do Defendants state anything beyond arguing they did not understand the consequences of not responding. Accordingly, Defendants Ketamine Healing Clinic of Los Angeles and David Mahjoubi’s Motion to Set Aside Default is DENIED.