700 Block Commercial LP vs. Matt Delima

34-2022-00319929-CU-BC-GDS: 700 Block Commercial LP vs. Matt Delima 05/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8D, located at 500 G 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/j/16113421868 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.

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

34-2022-00319929-CU-BC-GDS: 700 Block Commercial LP vs. Matt Delima 05/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) in Department 8D

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

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendant’s counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Defendant’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Defendant’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Defendant Jason Haugen’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Set Aside Default is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This action arises out of Plaintiff 700 Block Commercial LP’s (“Plaintiff”) lease of a commercial property to Defendants Matt Delima, Raghu Charan Bongu, and Jason Haugen. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached the commercial lease agreement by abandoning the property and thereafter failing to pay the contracted rent amount. (Compl., ¶¶ 10-18.) Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on May 13, 2022, alleges causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.

Plaintiff filed a proof of service on September 28, 2022, indicating that service was performed on Defendant, via substitute service on June 2, 2022 by serving a copy of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00319929-CU-BC-GDS: 700 Block Commercial LP vs. Matt Delima 05/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) in Department 8D

summons and complaint upon Defendant’s father following two successful attempts for personal service. Both the substitute service and attempts at personal service occurred at the same address in Merced which had been identified in the guarantee signed by Defendant as part of his lease of the commercial property.

On October 31, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for entry of default as to Defendant.

Defendant now moves to set aside default pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5.

Plaintiff opposes.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 states:

(a) When service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action and a default or default judgment has been entered against him or her in the action, he or she may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action. The notice of motion shall be served and filed within a reasonable time, but in no event exceeding the earlier of: (i) two years after entry of a default judgment against him or her; or (ii) 180 days after service on him or her of a written notice that the default or default judgment has been entered.

(b) A notice of motion to set aside a default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action shall designate as the time for making the motion a date prescribed by subdivision (b) of Section 1005, and it shall be accompanied by an affidavit showing under oath that the party's lack of actual notice in time to defend the action was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect. The party shall serve and file with the notice a copy of the answer, motion, or other pleading proposed to be filed in the action.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 is designed to provide relief where there was proper service but such service did not result in actual notice. (E.g., Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 175, 180.) “'[A]ctual notice' in section 473.5 'means genuine knowledge of the party litigant. . . .' [Citation.]” (Tunis v. Barrow (1986) 184 Cal. App. 3d 1069, 1077.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00319929-CU-BC-GDS: 700 Block Commercial LP vs. Matt Delima 05/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) in Department 8D

Discussion

In support of the motion, Defendant submits his declaration and the declaration of his father stating that: Defendant did not reside at the service address identified in the proof of service at the time service purportedly occurred; since approximately 2015, Defendant has not had a stable address to receive mail and his parents’ address in Merced to receive mail; from 2020 to 2025, Defendant was not in contact with his parents; Defendant’s father does not recall receiving service for his son in June of 2022; Defendant did not learn of the instant action or default until “a few months ago.”

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that because Defendant acknowledges that he received mail at his parent’s address, “it can be assumed that [Defendant] received the copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint because it was served upon his father and mailed to his parents’ residence.” (Opp., p. 4:24-26.) Plaintiff also argued that Defendant was aware of the claims against him based on receipt of pre-litigation communication and attendance in informal mediation in March 2022, prior to the filing of the Complaint. (Opp’n at p. 4:12- 17.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 applies where service was proper but did not result in actual notice. (E.g., Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 175, 180.) Actual notice is not imputed notice or constructive notice; rather, “the reference in Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 to “actual notice” means genuine knowledge of the party litigant.” (Rosenthal v. Garner (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 891, 895.)

Here, Plaintiff presents evidence, by means of the proof of service, that it properly served Defendant, via substitute service. Default judgment has not been entered against Defendant, and there is no proof of service of written notice that default has been entered against him.

Defendant presents evidence that he did not receive actual notice, providing specific facts regarding the lack of contact with his father between approximately 2020 and May 2025 (including not seeing them during this period), his lack of a consistent residence since approximately 2015, and the places where he has stayed during this period. Defendant’s evidence—and lack of a consistent place to receive service of process— supports that the lack of notice was not caused by inexcusable neglect or avoidance of service. Defendant also presents evidence regarding how he learned about the litigation in the latter period of 2025 and his actions taken after to set aside the default. Based on the evidence submitted to the Court, the Court finds that Defendant has met his burden

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00319929-CU-BC-GDS: 700 Block Commercial LP vs. Matt Delima 05/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) in Department 8D

in demonstrating lack of actual notice and that such lack of actual notice was not caused by inexcusable neglect or avoidance of service.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments regarding Defendant’s actual notice to be unpersuasive. There is no evidence that the substitute service on Defendant’s father at Defendant’s father’s address resulted in actual notice to Defendant. Further, the parties’ pre-litigation communications regarding potential claims and potential resolution of claims does not put Defendant on actual notice that a lawsuit was filed months later. (See Rosenthal, supra, 142 Cal.App.3d at p. 895 [rejecting “as wholly illogical” that a letter threatening “a possible future lawsuit was ‘actual notice’” to the recipient of the letter for purposes of section 473.5].)

Accordingly, based on the evidence before it, the Court grants motion to set aside the entry of default.

Disposition

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to set aside default is GRANTED. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5, Defendant shall file and serve the Proposed Answer on or before May 18, 2026.

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