Case Number: SC129895 Hearing Date: March 04, 2019 Dept: P

Los Angeles County Superior Court, Dept. P

TENTATIVE RULING

Case Name: 11th Street Investments, Inc. v. Taryn Rose et al.

Case No.: SC129895

Motion: Defendant Taryn Rose’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment

Hearing Date: 3/4/2019

Default judgment was entered for plaintiff in this unlawful detainer matter on January 24, 2019. Defendant argues the default judgment is void because she was not properly served and moves to set aside the default (Code Civ. Proc. §473.5).

A default judgment entered after service that does not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure is void for lack of jurisdiction. (Schering Corp. v. Superior Court 52 Cal.App.3d (1975) 737, 741.) Additionally, under Code of Civ. Proc. §473.5, a default judgment may be set aside if service did not result in actual notice. Once a motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction has been filed, the burden of proving valid service is on the plaintiff. (Ziller v. Electronics Lab GMBH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1233.) Generally, doubts in a motion such as this one should be resolved in favor of a party seeking to set aside a default in order to permit a trial on the merits. (Karlein v. Karlein (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 496, 498.)

Under Code of Civ. Proc. §415.45, an unlawful detainer complaint can be served via posting and mailing. Defendant presents evidence that the complaint and summons were not posted at her residence, nor were they mailed to her. (See Rose Declaration at ¶¶5, 11, 14-15). In opposition, Plaintiff disputes these claims, stating the documents were properly mailed and posted (See Opp. pp. 4:17-5:11.) Plaintiff’s argument that defendant was “aware a new notice was forthcoming” is unavailing (Opp., p. 2:9-10). In light of the competing factual narratives, the court exercises its discretion and will resolve doubts in favor of the party seeking to set aside the default. Motio GRANTED.