Motion to Set Aside Default; Status Conference re Default Judgment
1210 [self-represented party “is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys”].) As such, a self-represented party is “held to the same restrictive procedural rules as an attorney”. (Bistawros v. Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189, 193.)
After considering numerous factors, including those noted in TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra (2024) 15 Cal.5th 766, the court finds that it would not be just to grant the motion.
Defendants to give notice.
10 Carnations Home, Motion to Set Aside Default Inc. vs. The Hills Status Conference re Default Judgment Senior Living
1. Motion to Set Aside Default
The court GRANTS Defendants CHERRY CERAME, CHRISTOPHER CERAME, and MTE27, INC.’s (the Moving Defendants) motion to set aside their defaults.
RJN: The court GRANTS Moving Defendants’ requests for judicial notice concerning three court records. (Evid. Code, § 452(d).)
Where defendants were not properly served with the Summons and Complaint, any defaults entered against them are void. (See, e.g., First American Title Ins. Co. v. Banerjee (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 37, 42; Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1200.) Moreover, where the default was void, the motion to vacate the default is not subject to the six-month limitation contained in section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Braugh v. Dow (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 76, 86
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
As explained below, Moving Defendants show they were not properly served with the Summons and Complaint, and Plaintiff does not show otherwise.
Plaintiffs apparently served all three Moving Defendants at 22800 Savi Ranch Parkway, Suite 200, Yorba Linda, CA 92887 (“Savi Ranch Address”). MTE27 was purportedly personally served through “Allen Medina – Authorized Agent for Service of Process,” while the Cherry Cerame and Christopher Cerame were purportedly served by substituted service, and through “Vanessa B., Office Manager.”
Plaintiffs’ own Complaint, as well as evidence presented by Moving Defendants, show that the Savi Ranch address was not MTE27’s principal address, nor was Allen Medina its authorized agent for service of process.
Instead, MTE27’s principal address, and its mailing address, is 31506 Kailua Drive, Winchester, CA 92596. MTE27’s agent for service of process is 1505 Corporation, California Registered Agent, Inc. (Cherry Cerame Decl., ¶ 4; Christopher Cerame Decl., ¶ 4; see also Compl., ¶¶ 22-24 [alleging that MTE’s principal place of business is the Kailua address].)
Moving Defendants also proffer evidence that neither “Vanessa B.” nor Allen Medina (a co-defendant) are present employees of MTE, nor were they employees at the time of the purported service of the Summons and Complaint. (Cherry Cerame Decl., ¶ 3; Christopher Cerame Decl., ¶ 3.)
Cherry Cerame and Christopher Cerame also declare that they were not served with the Summons and Complaint. (Cherry Cerame Decl., ¶ 6; Christopher Cerame Decl., ¶ 6.)
Apparently, during Plaintiffs’ first attempt to serve Cherry Cerame and Christopher Cerame, Allen Medina advised the process server that neither Cherry Cerame nor Christopher Cerame worked at the office. (RJN, Exhs. B and C.)
It appears Plaintiffs knew, or should have known, the Savi Ranch Address was not the correct address to serve any of the three Defendants.
And while Plaintiff presents evidence that Defendants had actual notice of the lawsuit (York Decl., Exh. A), knowledge
of a lawsuit is insufficient. The court does not acquire jurisdiction over a defendant simply because they had actual notice of the lawsuit. (See, e.g., Sternbeck v. Buck (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 829, 838-839; Braugh v. Dow (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 76, 88-89 [plaintiff’s non-compliance with the service of process rules was an issue of fundamental jurisdiction, rather than a mere technicality, such that the judgment or order is void even in the face of actual notice].)
In sum, the motion is GRANTED. The entry of default against each of the Moving Defendants is VACATED. (See ROA 67 [default entered on 4/29/25 against Cherry Cerame]; ROA 70 [default entered 4/29/25 against Christopher Cerame]; and ROA 86 [default entered on 4/29/25 against MTE27, Inc.]
In light of the ruling, the court again sets a Case Management Conference (CMC), set for October 26, 2026 at 10:00 am in Dept. W8. All appearing parties SHALL file and serve a new timely case management conference statement at least 15 calendar days prior to the continued hearing as required by the rules, including California Rules of Court rule 3.725 and Local Rule 369. Failure to do so may result in the imposition of monetary sanctions of $500.00 against the offending party and/or its attorney of record.
The court also sets an Order to Show Cause (OSC) re Sanctions, including Dismissal for Plaintiff’s Failure to Serve and Prosecute. Plaintiffs are ordered to appear and ordered to file a Proof of Service re Summons and Complaint on all unserved defendant(s) at least 10 court days before the hearing. If Plaintiffs fail to do so, the court will dismiss the action against any unserved defendant at the hearing unless Plaintiffs appear and show good cause otherwise. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110(f); Orange County Superior Court Local Rule 381.)
The OSC re Sanctions/Dismissal will be the same date, time and place as the new CMC.
Plaintiffs to give notice.
2. Status Conference re Default Judgment
Plaintiffs submitted a default packet on or about 10/31/25 and requested a court judgment against numerous defendants. At the time, defaults had been entered against all named defendants.
The court found the evidence submitted with the original default packet to be insufficient for the requested default judgment. (See 11/12/25 Minute Order.)
Plaintiffs filed supplemental declarations on 1/12/26, and after taking the matter under submission on 1/21/26, the court issued a ruling, stating the “default packet remains defective.” (3/12/26 Minute Order.)
In light of the ruling on the motion to set aside, the court takes the Status Conference re Default Judgment OFF- CALENDAR.
As previously mentioned, the Complaint treats all of the defendants together. As such, the court will not proceed with a default judgment against the remaining defaulted defendants until trial or when all of the named defendants have been defaulted or dismissed.
Plaintiff to give notice.
11 Doe 7159 vs. Motion to Compel Binding Arbitration Pacifica Christian High School The court DENIES Defendant PACIFICA CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL’s motion to compel Plaintiff JOHN DOE 7159 to arbitrate his claims.
Defendant provides evidence that Plaintiff’s mother, on behalf of Plaintiff, signed a 4/8/24 Enrollment Agreement – a 10 page agreement containing the following arbitration provision:
24. Arbitration: This Arbitration Agreement will be governed by federal law under the Federal Arbitration
20