UNSPECIFIED

Defendant's business was located. Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. states, "In the absence of a voluntary submission to the authority of the court, compliance with the statutes governing service of process is essential to establish that court's personal jurisdiction over a defendant. When a defendant challenges that jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service." (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-1440.) Tentatively, the Court plans to GRANT, Defendant Yinming Liu's motion to vacate the default and default judgment entered against Yinming Liu. The Court notes that this order does not apply to the other Defendants, as no other Defendants moved to vacate default/judgment.

record to answer the following questions regarding the stipulation to continue: Why did the parties agree to the current trial dates set by the Court at the CMC on 9/11/25? The Court notes that counsel of record attended the CMC? Why did the issue of a continuance not arise until approximate three weeks ago? Counsel for plaintiff cites a wedding and a honeymoon in October through December 2026. When did counsel become aware of the scheduling of the wedding and honeymoon? Is "actively considering mediation" good cause to continue a trial date under CRC 3.1332?

The Court referred this case to the MVP program on 9/11/25. Have the parties pursued an MVP mediation? Is there no other counsel available at plaintiff's firm, Downtown Law Firm, available to try this case? What discovery has been done? What discovery remains? Why has discovery not been completed? If discovery was put off, why was it put off? Is putting off discovery because the parties are considering mediation good cause to continue under CRC 3.1332? | Home -->)" -->