SYNCHRONY BANK vs BERT TILLETT

DEPARTMENT Y LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

vs BERT TILLETT Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and considered the moving papers filed by Defendant Bert Tillett (“Defendant”), and the supporting declaration and exhibit. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Defendant, who is in pro per, seeks an order vacating and setting aside the judgment entered against him in this matter pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(b) and 473.5.

Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on May 19, 2024. Plaintiff filed Proof of Personal Service on July 8, 2025. According to the Proof of Service, Defendant accepted service of the Summons and Complaint when he was served in person by the process server at 2615 E. 15 th St., Long Beach, CA 90804. No description of the person served is provided, but the process server said the individual reached for the “docs when named.”

On July 31, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default, which was entered by the Clerk of the Court. On August 13, 2025, the Clerk of the Court entered Default Judgment in the amount of $8,004.04, plus costs in the amount of $328.84 for a total Judgment of $8,333.88 in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. A Writ of Execution was issued on September 23, 2025 in the amount of $8,373.88.

On January 16 and 27, 2026, Defendant attempted to file a Motion to Vacate Judgment, but it was rejected by the Clerk. On February 2, 2026, Defendant refiled his Motion to Vacate Judgment. In his motion, Defendant argues that he learned of the judgment on December 1, 2025 when his employer notified him of an earning withholding order that was received. He acted promptly to file this motion upon learning of the judgment. He also states, under penalty of perjury, that he did not live at the address where he was allegedly served on June 5, 2025. He provided a copy of his lease for his residence where he moved on April 1, 2025. Defendant also states that he does not know who accepted service of the lawsuit; he never received a copy of the lawsuit in the mail; and he had no actual notice of the lawsuit.

The Court notes that Proof of Service of Summons by a registered process server by personal service filed with the Court creates a presumption of service under Evidence Code section 647. However, the declaration submitted by Defendant, which was signed under penalty of perjury, confirms that Defendant did not reside at the address identified on the Proof of Service. Here, the Court finds that Defendant has rebutted that presumption and that there was no actual notice. “Actual notice,” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5, means genuine knowledge by the defendant, and has been strictly construed. Relief under the statute is liberally granted to defendants so that cases may be resolved on their merits.