18-CLJ-01743 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. DENNIS KEITH CRAWFORD, ET AL.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY DENNIS KEITH CRAWFORD
RICHARD L. MAHFOUZ

ANDREW F. NOBLE

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT DENNIS KEITH CRAWFORD TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Dennis Keith Crawford’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, filed 7-30-19, is DENIED. Code Civ. Proc. § 473.

First, no proposed Answer has been provided with the moving papers. An application/motion to set aside a default under § 473(b) “shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted …”). To the extent Defendant seeks relief under § 473(d), the moving papers provide no persuasive argument or authority indicating the Judgment is somehow “void.”

Further, and as independent grounds for denying the motion, it lacks sufficient evidentiary support. Defendant Crawford is the party seeking relief, yet Crawford provides no declaration. Instead, the motion hinges on an alleged statement by Mr. Sowells (apparently Crawford’s uncle), who received the Summons & Complaint at the Vallejo, Ca. address. See 7-30-19 Rivera Decl., ¶¶2-3. There is no declaration from Mr. Sowells, and his alleged statement (see Rivera Decl., ¶2) is hearsay and directly contradicts the process server’s sworn declaration (see 12-3-18 Declaration of Diligence), and thus is disregarded.

Similarly, defense counsel Andrew Noble swears “under penalty of perjury” that “At the time of service, defendant did not live at the [Vallejo] address listed in the proof of service. Furthermore, defendant did not receive a copy of the complaint or have actual notice of its filing.” 7-30-19 Noble Decl., ¶8. The foregoing statements lack foundation and are made without personal knowledge, and thus are disregarded. It is not clear from the papers Mr. Noble has ever met or spoken with Defendant Crawford (his client), let alone have personal knowledge of where Crawford was living in Nov. 2018, or whether Crawford ever received the Summons and Complaint, or had actual notice of this lawsuit.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.