Do v Nguyen

# Case Name Tentative Ruling

102 Do v Nguyen, 2024- MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION – GRANTED 01406383 Defendant Debbie Tuyet Nguyen (“Defendant”) moves for an order reconsidering the December 8, 2025 denial of Defendant’s Motion to Vacate and vacating the default and default judgment entered in favor of plaintiff William Chung Quang Do (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a).)

The court finds Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration was timely filed.

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate demonstrated that Defendant has lived at Tranquil Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 for 16 years and she was never served with any documents in this case before default was entered against her. Thus, the purported service on April 9, 2025 at 10560 Morning Glory, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 was not proper service, as this is not Defendant’s place of residence or usual abode. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20(b).)

Plaintiff’s opposition to the Motion to Vacate argued that service was attempted at the Huntington Beach address but after diligent attempts, there was no answer. The fact that service was attempted and could not be completed at the Huntington Beach address does not make service at the Fountain Valley address proper.