RAMON A. PINEDA VS PARMANAND KUMAR

Case Number: VC055215    Hearing Date: August 19, 2014    Dept: SEC

PINEDA v. KUMAR
CASE NO.: VC055215
HEARING: 08/19/14

#2
TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs/cross-defendants’ motion to set aside “default judgment” is GRANTED.
C.C.P. § 473(d). The May 7, 2014 judgment and July 18, 2014 amended judgment are hereby VACATED.

In December 2010, the parties to this action filed a settlement agreement with the Court. Motion, Exh. A. The action was dismissed in January 2011, with the Court retaining jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
In May 2014, defendant/cross-complainant PARMANAND KUMAR’s motion for entry of judgment was granted. In July 2014, the judgment was amended (upon Kumar’s request) to correct the name of one of the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs/cross-defendants seek an order setting aside the judgment on the ground that they did not receive actual notice of the proceedings against them.

On January 30, 2014, the Court denied defendant’s motion for entry of judgment due to improper service on plaintiff. In the court records, plaintiffs’ counsel of record was listed as “Hindin & Abel, 11601 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2490, Los Angeles, CA 90025.” Defendant’s January 2014 motion was served on “Robert Marc Hindin, 11400 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1510, Los Angeles, CA 90064.” According to the State Bar website (calbar.org), Mr. Hindin’s proper address is “11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1245, Los Angeles, CA 90064.”

Defendant re-filed the motion, and the proof of service indicated that it was served on all three addresses noted above, as well as on plaintiffs Nervilla Agnes Pineda (as trustee), Home Avenue Adult Day Care and DNA, LLC. The motion was unopposed, and there was thus no basis to question whether service was effected.

Plaintiffs claim that they were unaware of any activity in the case until they received a copy of the judgment in May 2014. See Decl. of Nervilla Pineda, Ramon Pineda. They attest that prior counsel Mr. Hindin never informed them of any filings or documents with which he was purportedly served. They obtained new counsel and filed the subject motion on July 24, 2014.

The only evidence submitted by defendant (aside from his declaration addressing other points) is a copy of the envelope addressed to Mr. Hinden and postmarked in February 2014. The Court finds that plaintiffs/cross-defendants met their burden of establishing that they did not receive notice of the prior motion and did not have an opportunity to contest the propriety of the judgment. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *