BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 05/05/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Relief from Default in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

Notice: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Monday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956.

Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 05/05/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Relief from Default in Department 53

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Defendant California Department of Transportation’s (“Caltrans”) motion for relief from default pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is ruled upon as follows.

Background

On August 15, 2024, Plaintiff in pro per Robert L. Bridges filed a complaint for damages against Caltrans arising out of Caltrans’ allegedly discriminatory practices in awarding bids for contracting projects.[1]

On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service of summons stating process server Mike Singh served the summons and complaint on August 20, 2024 by personal service on Neha Singh, who is identified as an authorized agent for service on the Proof of Service of Summons.

On October 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default as to Caltrans. The clerk entered default the same day.

On January 28, 2025, Caltrans filed a motion to quash service of summons and complaint. On March 6, 2025, the Court denied the motion on the basis that because Caltrans was in default, the Court had no jurisdiction to hear any motion by Caltrans other than a motion to set aside the default.

On April 4, 2025, Caltrans filed the instant motion to set aside default. Caltrans moves for an order setting aside entry of default on the grounds that entry was “obtained by surprise due to Plaintiff’s improper service as well as the numerous procedural defects in Plaintiff’s effort to obtain default following improper service.” (Notice of Motion, 1:24- 26.) With the motion, Caltrans submits a proposed demurrer to the complaint that it intends to file upon relief from default.

Plaintiff opposes on the basis that service of the summons and complaint was not improper.

Legal Standard

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 05/05/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Relief from Default in Department 53

“The court may on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d).) The court may set aside default judgment valid on its face but void as a matter of law due to improper service. (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544.) The burden of proof on such a motion is on the moving party who must establish his position by a preponderance of the evidence. (Luz v. Lopes (1960) 55 Cal.2d 54, 62.)

Alternatively, the court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b).)

Discussion

Relief Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d)

Caltrans argues service of the summons and complaint was defective, rendering the default void and subject to an order setting it aside.

Section 416.50 governs service of process upon a public entity such as Caltrans, an agency of the State of California. This section provides “[a] summons may be served on a public entity by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the clerk, secretary, president, presiding officer, or other head of its governing body.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 416.50(a).)

Section 415.20 further provides: “(a) In lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served as specified in Section [] 416.50, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and of the complaint during usual office hours in his office with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint (by first-class mail, postage prepaid) to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and of the complaint were left. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after such mailing.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(a)(emphasis added).)

The filing of a proof of service generally creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper (Floveyor Int'l, Ltd. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795.) However, the presumption arises only if the proof of service complies with the applicable statutory requirements. (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1441.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 05/05/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Relief from Default in Department 53

The proof of service of summons on file indicates Plaintiff served Neha Singh, Caltrans’ “authorized agent for service of process,” by personal service on August 16, 2024. Caltrans presents evidence that “after some inquiry, Caltrans is unaware of who Neha Singh is, and is not aware of a person by that name with authority to accept service of summons.” (Declaration of Stephen L. Davis, ¶ 10.) Accordingly, Neha Singh is not an individual authorized to accept service pursuant to Section 416.50, subd. (a). Moreover, the process server did not describe her such that the Court can reasonably infer Neha Singh was “apparently in charge” of the office where the summons and complaint were left. (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(a).) The Court finds this is sufficient to overcome any presumption created by the August 16, 2024 proof of service that service on Caltrans was proper.

Caltrans submits its meet and confer attempts with Plaintiff’s former counsel. (Exhs. B and C to Davis Decl.) This meet and confer correspondence indicates Plaintiff also attempted to serve the summons and complaint on Caltrans by email. (Id., Exh. B.) This is not an authorized method of service on a public entity. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 416.50, 415.20.) Caltrans also submits a document entitled “civil service of process cover sheet” which indicates Plaintiff attempted to serve the summons and complaint upon the Department of Justice on August 20, 2024. (Id., Exh.

C.) The document has a signature next to the line for “Security Signature,” but there is no name written. Accordingly, while the identity of the individual who signed the document is not clear, a reasonable inference could be made that the individual is a security guard. The Court does not find a security guard is a person “apparently in charge” of the office where the summons and complaint were left for the purpose of effectuating service. (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(a).) Nor does Plaintiff assert any authority to indicate the contrary.

The Court finds these attempts at service were defective for the reasons explained above. Where service of the summons is defective or never made, an order or judgment entered on default is void and can be set aside under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d). (See also Sakaguchi v. Sakaguchi (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 852, 858 [default entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void]; Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1200 [same].)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Caltrans is “guilty of latches” (sic) by moving to quash service of summons prior to moving for relief from entry of default. (Opposition, 3:18- 21.) Plaintiff cites to no authority in support of his argument. Caltrans argues in reply that the doctrine of laches is unavailable here because it filed its motion for relief within six months of entry.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 05/05/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Relief from Default in Department 53

The California Supreme Court has held that “a motion to vacate judgment should not be granted where it is shown that the party requesting relief has been guilty of inexcusable neglect or that laches should attach. In evaluating such factors, the trial court must look to the extent of prejudice to the opposing party, and to the reasonableness of the moving party in not filing a motion to vacate earlier.” (In re Marriage of Park (1980) 27 Cal.3d 337, 345.) Applying this principle to the present facts, Caltrans moved to have the default set aside within six months of entry. (See, contra, In re Marriage of Park, supra, 27 Cal.3d at 341-42 [motion to vacate filed four years after entry of judgment].)

While Caltrans’ opted to first file a motion to quash before the present motion to have default set aside, the delay caused by the motion to quash was not so significant that it indicates Caltrans’ failure to act diligently in having default set aside.

Moreover, Plaintiff has not made any showing that he will be prejudiced by the Court setting aside the default. The Court finds laches are inapplicable here.

For the aforementioned reasons, the motion is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d).) Caltrans’ default is set aside.

Relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473 subd. (b)

Even if the default was not void as found above, the Court in its discretion finds an order setting aside default pursuant to Section 473, subd. (b) is appropriate here.

Section 473, subd. (b) states that a court “may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” This part of section 473 is recognized as discretionary, and the judgment of the trial court “‘shall not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse.’” (Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 254, 257.)

To obtain discretionary relief under section 473, the moving party must show the requisite mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Bonzer v. City of Huntington Park (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1478, quoting Iott v. Franklin (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 521, 526–528.) Section 473 also requires that the party diligently seek relief “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Code Civ. Proc. 473(b).)

The law favors disposing of cases on their merits--accordingly, any doubts in applying Section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default. (Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 681, 696.) If a defendant promptly seeks relief

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 05/05/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Relief from Default in Department 53

and there is no showing of prejudice to Plaintiff, very slight evidence will be required to justify the Court in setting aside the defendant’s default. (Ibid.)

Caltrans submits the declaration of counsel Stephen Davis in support of its argument that Plaintiff filing for default without prior meet and confer efforts entitles Caltrans to relief based on surprise. Davis declares that Deputy Chief Counsel for the legal department of Caltrans, Alan Steinberg, communicated to Plaintiff’s counsel by letter on August 16, 2024 and August 20, 2024. (Declaration of Stephen Davis, ¶¶7, 8.) Caltrans did not receive any meet and confer correspondence in return or otherwise communicate an intention to seek Caltrans’ default. (Id., ¶¶9, 11.) Plaintiff proceeded to file the request for entry of default on October 10, 2024. (Id., ¶11.)

Courts have found taking a defendant’s default “without so much as a reminder, let alone a warning, about any responsive pleading” is unfair in light of the ethical obligation of counsel to warn before requesting entry of default. (See Fasuyi, supra, 167 Cal.App.681 at 700-701.) Here, after Caltrans communicated service upon it was improper, Plaintiff’s counsel then moved for entry of default without warning. While Plaintiff’s duty to warn Caltrans was of an ethical nature rather than a legal one, “[t]he quiet speed of plaintiffs’ attorney seeking a default judgment without the knowledge of defendants’ counsel is not to be commended.” (Smith v. Los Angeles Bookbinders Union No. 63 (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 486, 500; see also Bellm v. Bellia (1984) 150 Cal.Appl.3d 1036 [no legal duty to warn].)

Caltrans filed the instant motion on April 4, 2025, within six months of entry of default. The Court notes Caltrans could have moved for relief sooner rather than first filing a motion to quash service of summons premised on deficient service. However, the motion to quash arose out of the same facts as the present motion, putting Plaintiff on notice of Caltrans’ position that service upon Caltrans had not been effectuated. Nor has Plaintiff otherwise made a showing that he will be prejudiced by an order setting default aside.

Given these facts, the Court finds Caltrans has demonstrated it is entitled to a discretionary order setting aside default pursuant to Section 473, subd. (b).

On this alternate ground, the motion is GRANTED.

Disposition

For the aforementioned reasons, the motion is GRANTED. Caltrans’ default is set aside. Caltrans shall serve and file the proposed responsive pleading submitted with the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 05/05/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Relief from Default in Department 53

moving papers no later than May 19, 2025. Plaintiff will have 30 days to respond, 35 if served by mail.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

[1] At the time he filed the complaint, Plaintiff was represented by counsel. A substitution of counsel was filed on October 17, 2024, with Plaintiff representing himself.