DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2023-01330124·orange·Civil·Civil
Hearing 14 days agoGRANTED

Williams v. Allegis Group, Inc.

Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment

Hearing date
Aug 10, 2026
Department
C28
Prevailing
Defendant
Next hearing
Jan 25, 2027

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffWilliams
DefendantAllegis Group, Inc.
DefendantThe Procter & Gamble Company

Ruling

# Case Name Tentative

emotional distress damages. But in Young v. Bank of America, (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 108, 114, the court held that damages for pain, suffering, and emotional distress are general damages which need not be specifically pleaded in the prayer for relief. In other words, emotional distress allegations in the body of the complaint can support recovery even without a corresponding prayer.

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, if any, within ten days of this order.

The case management conference is continued to January 25, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28.

Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.

53.

54. Williams v. Defendant The Procter & Gamble Company’s Motion to Set Allegis Aside Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Group, Inc. Proc. §473, subd. (d).)

2023- Moving Defendant has shown that valid service of process was 01330124 not achieved over it, so any ensuing default and/or default judgment is void.

The default judgment entered on 11/12/25 is hereby VACATED.

Moving Defendant’s default entered on 6/6/24 is hereby SET ASIDE.

The case management conference is scheduled for January 25, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28.

Defendant Procter & Gamble shall provide notice.

55. Hussien v. Specially appearing defendants Hidalgo Daniel Alonso and Alonso Patricia Hildalgo’s motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a) [authorizing 2025- motion]; Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 01534468 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439 [proper service of summons is required for the court to obtain jurisdiction over a defendant]; Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710 [plaintiff has burden of proof to demonstrate jurisdiction is proper].)

Moving parties’ evidence is sufficient to rebut any presumption of proper service established by the proofs of service of the summons and complaint filed by plaintiff in this action (ROA 10, 12). (Evid. Code, § 647 [“The return of a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share