1324 Stradella LLC v. Antokhov

Plaintiff has not articulated an applicable statute that would allow liability against the City of Santa Monica or its employees. Section 820 does not apply because neither an employee nor private person can be held liable for a violation under Family Code section 6228 or Penal Code section 13730. 2) Plaintiff's claim pursuant to Family Code section 6228 fails to state a claim because there is no private right of action under that statute. 3) Plaintiff's claim pursuant to Penal Code section 13730 fails to state a claim because there is no private right of action under that statute. 4) Plaintiff's claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C 1982 fails to state claim because her allegations include neither property conveyance nor discrimination claims.

Additionally, even if Plaintiff meant to plead a 42 U.S.C 1983 claim, the claim also fails because she has not asserted facts that she deprived of a specific law under the Constitution of the United States of America or laws or the United States. (Motion at p. 2.) The Court agrees with the City that the FAC fails to state a claim because neither Family Code section 6228 nor Penal Code section 13730 authorizes a private right of action. (See Fam. Code, Sec. 6228; Pen. Code, Sec. 13730.) Government Code section 820 permits vicarious liability against public employees to the same extent a private person could be held liable. (Gov.

Code, Sec. 820.) As no private right of action exists under either statute, section 820 is inapplicable. Lastly, Plaintiff does not state a claim under the Bane Act or 42 U.S.C Sec.1983 because Plaintiff cannot show a deliberate threat of violence or under section 52.1 or a policy/custom that encouraged or facilitated discriminatory conduct. Further, the Court finds that leave to amend is not appropriate because Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden of demonstrating that the defects can be cured by amendment. (Goodman v.

Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349; Opp., generally.) Accordingly, the City's demurrer to the FAC is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

TENTATIVE RULING September 1, 2026 26SMCV02683 (1324 Stradella LLC v. Antokhov) RELEVANT BACKGROUND On May 13, 2026, plaintiff 1324 STRADELLA LLC (Plaintiff) filed its unlawful detainer complaint against defendant Evegeny Antokhov (Defendant). INSTANT MOTION On August 27, 2026, Defendant filed the instant motion to set aside the judgment and any default and to quash any writ of possession/execution. Plaintiff filed an opposition, and Defendant filed a reply.

DISCUSSION "The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against the party through the party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken." (Code Civ.

Proc. Sec. 473, subd. (b).) "When service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action and a default or default judgment has been entered against him or her in the action, he or she may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473.5.) A proof of service containing a declaration from a registered process server invokes a rebuttable presumption of valid service. (See American Express Centurion Bank v.

Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390; see also Evid. Code Sec. 647.) The party seeking to defeat service of process must present sufficient evidence to show that the service did not take place as stated. (See Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1428; cf. People v. Chavez (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1471, 1483.) Here, Defendant seeks relief under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(b), 473.5, 473(d), 128(a)(8), and 86(b)(3). Defendant argues that he was not properly served with the summons and complaint, and that the Evidence Code section 647 presumption of validity is rebutted by evidence.

Specifically, Defendant points to his declaration. (Antokhov Decl. P. 2-9.) He declares that the May 17 person did not identify himself, did not say the document was court papers, and handed over only a document of several pages, not the approximately 33-page package described in the return. (Id. P. 9.) He further testified that no mailed summons arrived. (Id., P. 9, 13a.) Additionally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's own service materials describe a recipient that does not match Defendant or any other adult male resident and the process server's declaration overstates what the declarant's own contemporaneous sheet shows. (Id.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant was properly served. Plaintiff argues that its registered process server, Arman Mardigian, made repeated attempts to personally serve Defendant at the premises on May 15, May 16, and May 17, 2026. (Mardigian Decl., 3-6, Exh. 1). Plaintiff states that substituted service was complete on May 27, 2026, the tenth day after mailing. (Code Civ. Proc., 415.20(b)) In reply, Defendant maintains that he was not properly served. Defendant admits an encounter at the property on May 17, 2026, and receipt of a short, multipage document.

He does not admit receiving the 33-page summons and complaint package described in the return,

being told that the papers were court process, or receiving the required mailed copy. Defendant did not acquire genuine knowledge of this action until July 20, 2026 and filed his motion three days later. The Court finds that Defendant has presented sufficient evidence to show that the service did not take place as stated and rebut the presumption of valid service. (Antokhov Decl. P. 2-9; Mardigian Decl., 3-6, Ex. 1). Defendant declares that the process server did not identify himself, did not say the document was court papers, and handed over only a document of several pages, not the approximately 33-page package described in the return. (Id.

P. 9.) He further testified that no mailed summons arrived. (Antokhov Decl. P. 9, 13a.) Additionally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's own service materials describe a recipient that does not match Defendant or any other adult male resident and the process server's declaration overstates what the declarant's own contemporaneous sheet shows. (Id.; Mardigian Decl., 3-6, Ex. 1.) The Court finds this to be adequate to rebut the presumption of valid service. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to set aside the judgment and any default and to quash any writ of possession/execution) is GRANTED.

Defendant may have thirty (30) days in which to respond to the complaint. | Home -->)" -->