Plaza Services, LLC vs George Berry

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 06/24/2026 TIME: 9:00 and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 24CV428612 Plaza Services, LLC vs Motion: Set Aside Default/Judgment George Berry Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 1

LINE 2 24CV434201 Balbinder Kaur vs Motion: Attorneys Fees & Costs General Motors, LLC LINES 3-4 25CV456689 Richard Chamberlain vs Hearing: Motion to Strike Santa Clara Public Hearing: Demurrer Defender’s Office et al Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 3 LINES 5-6 25CV460503 Roy Toledo vs D.H. Motion: Sanctions & Protective Order Smith Company, Inc. Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 5 LINE 7 25CV471073 John Doe L.M., an Motion: Compel individual, vs Craig Chandler et al Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to Line 7) LINES 8 25CV478936 Ari Lazier vs Walnut Hearing: Petition Compel Creek Ford et al Arbitration

Please scroll down to Line 8

9:01 CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 25CV468267 Mercy Falls, LLC vs Motion: Withdraw as attorney United Security Specialists, Inc. et al Notice is proper. No opposition received. Attorney Jacqueline Simonovich’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Mercy Falls LLC is GRANTED.

Movant to e-file Form MC-053 within 2 days of the hearing. Movant shall give notice to Plaintiff within 2 days of the date of the hearing, including the following: Plaintiff must appear at the Further Case Management Conference (to be scheduled) in Department 12. * Counsel to appear for scheduling*

Calendar Line 1 Case Name: Plaza Services LLC v. George Berry Case No.: 24CV428612

Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment for lack of service

The Court file reflects a facially valid proof of substituted service on July 25, 2024 at 4:55 p.m. at Defendant’s residence on Sequoia Drive in Gilroy, California. A signed proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that service was properly effected. Defendant bears the burden to present admissible evidence establishing lack of valid service. Defendant has not met his burden to rebut that presumption.

Defendant's motion argues that front door surveillance footage exists showing improper service (to be provided upon request.) No declaration regarding details provided. Unsubmitted evidence is insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service. The Court does not consider evidence referenced in a motion but not submitted. The Court declines to continue the hearing sua sponte to permit supplementation of the evidentiary record based solely on assertions that additional evidence may exist.