Villa Tarzana Development v. Hernandez

Defendant offers no signed, written agreement containing an arbitration provision, nor any communications or other acts by plaintiff demonstrating the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate. Defendant's argument in reply that other courts have ruled in favor of arbitration in similar circumstances is not well-taken. Defendant's reliance on federal district court decisions, even those in the Central District of California, is misplaced. See 8/20/26 Decl. Ameripour, paras. 2-5. Decisions of federal trial courts are not binding precedent.

The law is clear: an essential element of any contract is the consent of the parties, or mutual assent, which must be communicated by each party to the other. See Donovan v. RRL Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261, 270; Civ. Code, Sec.1565. A unilateral arbitration clause in an unsigned owner's handbook is not sufficient to find that a contract was formed. Defendant failed to meet its burden. DENIED.

Villa Tarzana Development v. Hernandez, Case no. 26VEUD00801 Hearing date August 27, 2026 Defendant Hernandez's Motion to Set Aside Default and Quash Writ - UNOPPOSED

Plaintiff Villa Tarzana Development sued defendant Hernandez for unlawful detainer. Default judgment was entered on 5/18/26. A writ of possession issued on 5/20/26 and returned, unfulfilled, on 6/25/26. Judgment was entered 8/4/26.

Defendant moved to set aside the default and quash the unfulfilled writ, asserting substitute service was not effective; the motion was unopposed. The court denied the motion for failure to provide proper notice. 7/20/26 Min. Order. Defendant refiled the same motion to set aside and quash on 7/20/26 and filed a proof of service via first-class US mail on 7/30/26. The motion is unopposed.

Per Code Civ. Proc. Sec.473(b) a motion to set aside default is timely if filed "within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding 6 months" after the order was taken. Default was entered 5/18/26; judgment was entered 8/4/26. This motion was filed 7/20/26. The motion is timely.

Plaintiff filed a proof of service dated 5/11/26 asserting substitute service was affected on 4/14/26 at 6000 Etiwanda Avenue #127, Tarzana, CA 91356, via service on a "Jessica H. (FEMALE/ HISPANIC/ 38YRS/ 5'5"/ 170 LBS/ BLK HAIR/ BRN EYES) MEMBER OF HOUSEHOLD)." See 5/11/26 POS.

Per defendant's declaration, the property's occupants were defendant, defendant's male spouse/partner Johnson, defendant's 62 year-old mother Villareal and her 1 year-old child. See Decl. Hernandez, para.

6. Defendant declares the only occupants at the property at the time of purported service were Villareal and the child. Id.

Defendant asserts she received no notice a lawsuit was filed, despite having been in active communications with plaintiff regarding defendant's pending vacating of the property. See Decl. Hernandez, paras. 8-10. Defendant asserts she vacated on 6/6/26 after a lock-out by the Los Angeles County Sheriff. Id. at para.

12.

While a proof of service by a registered process server creates a presumption that service was effective, defendant's declaration is sufficient to defeat the presumption and establish that substitute service was not effective. As the motion is unopposed, plaintiff failed to proffer evidence or arguments showing the default or writ should stand. GRANTED. The default judgment is set aside, and the 5/20/26 writ of possession is recalled and quashed. | Home -->)" -->