CITIBANK, N.A. VS. LUKE HEMINGWAY

June 12, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar

HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ 9:00 AM Line 8 25-CLJ-05131 CITIBANK, N.A. VS. LUKE HEMINGWAY

CITIBANK, N.A. JOAN WAGNER LUKE HEMINGWAY PRO SE

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment

TENTATIVE RULING:

The unopposed Motion of Defendant Luke Hemingway (“Defendant”) to Vacate Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d).

NOTE: Defendant’s Notice of Motion contains an incorrect address for Department 20. Department 20 is now located at 1050 Mission Road, Courtroom L, South San Francisco, CA, 94080.

On motion after notice to the other party, the court may set aside any void judgment or order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).) A court may set aside a default judgment valid on its face, but void, as a matter of law, due to improper service. (Kremerman v. White (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 358, 371, citing Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544.) A default judgment is void against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute. (Id., at p. 371.) No time limit exists to bring a motion to vacate default judgment as void for lack of proper service. (California Capital Ins. Co. v. Hoehn (2024) 17 Cal.5th 207.)

Defendant contends that he was not properly served with the Summons and Complaint and therefore the default and default judgment entered against him are void. The proof of service of the summons and Complaint provides that a registered process server served Defendant by personal service on July 12, 2025, describing Defendant as “a blonde-haired white male contact 25-35 years of age, 5'10" - 6'0" tall and weighing 120-140 lbs." (Defendant’s Decl., Exh. B.) The filing of a proof of service by a registered process server creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper. (Chinese Theater, LLC v.

Starline Tours USA, Inc. (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1048, 1059, citing Evid. Code, § 647 [“The return of a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.”].) This rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence is merely a preliminary assumption in the absence of contrary evidence. (Id. at p. 1059.)

The process server’s return may be impeached by contradictory evidence. (Ibid.) Defendant rebuts this presumption by providing evidence to support that the process server’s description does not match his physical description. (Defendant’s Decl., and Exh. A.) Plaintiff has not opposed this Motion, and therefore Defendant’s evidence is undisputed.

Accordingly, the default entered on November 5, 2025 and default judgment entered on December 4, 2025 against Defendant are VACATED. Defendant is to file and serve his Answer by June 26, 2026.

June 12, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 28 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept20@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court by Minute Order. The Court will prepare the Order after hearing.