Midland v. Mills

15. Midland v. Mills, Case No. CIVDS1915848 Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Judgment 7/8/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

The Court would DENY. This matter was initially filed against Defendant on May 22, 2019. A proof of service was filed on June 27, 2019, and a default judgment was taken on November 16, 2020. Now, in the light of collection efforts, Defendant filed a single, hand-written document titled Motion to Vacate Judgment. The document simply asserts “lack of notice” but is not supported by declaration or any other tangible evidence. The instant motion, however, appears to be attempting to assert that the service that occurred almost six years ago was somehow improper.

That argument requires a motion to quash service. However, even if viewed through that lens, the service was effectuated by a registered process server on a party who is identified as Plaintiff’s “Co-resident”. (Proof of Service, filed June 27, 2019.) When service is done by a registered process server, there is a rebuttable presumption as to the facts stated in the return. If the presumption applies, then the defendant bears the burden to produce evidence of non-service. (American Expr. Centurion Bank v.

Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390.) Thus, here, movant would bear the burden to produce evidence of non-service. However, no evidence has been submitted.

*** *** ***

16. Koppen, Jr., v. FCA US, LLC, et al, Case No. CIVSB2427507 Defendant FCA’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff 7/8/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

The Court would GRANT and order Plaintiff’s deposition to move forward on July 10, 2026, as agreed to by the parties. Sanctions are not requested and are, therefore, not at issue.

*** *** ***

2