Brian Anakin Hill-Alamina v. City of Lakewood, et al.

The Court further notes that the general rule for substituted service is that "[s]ervice must be made upon a person 'whose relationship with the person to be served makes it more likely than not that they will deliver process to the named party.'[Citation.]" (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1203.) Here, the Court finds that there is a rebuttable presumption that service weas proper where Plaintiff filed a verified POS. However, TGL has provided contradictory evidence. Plaintiff has failed to meet her ultimate burden in demonstrating that service was properly effected in light of such evidence.

Based on the POS and the evidence presented, the Court finds that it was not reasonable for the process server to serve Eryn Hart where there was no indication that she would deliver the documents to the intended recipient. Similar to the Chinese Theater case, Ms. Hart was not employed by TGL and worked merely as a front desk receptionist. (Hart Decl., P.P. 2-; Li Decl., P.P. 10-16, Exhs. A-B; Yin Decl., P.P. 8-10.) Ms. Hart further declared that the process server never asked whether she worked for TGL and that, at the time, she did not know what TGL was. (Hart Decl., P.P. 19-20.)

The Court finds that such service is "insufficient to support a conclusion that [Ms. Hart] was apparently in charge of [TGL's registered agent's] business office as required by section 415.20." (See Chinese Theater, supra, 115 Cal.App.5th at p. 1060.) Further, the fact that TGL's registered agent may have received actual notice via service by first class mail at the same address is irrelevant. (See Chinese Theater, supra, 115 Cal.App.5th at p. 1060 ["That [defendant's CEO] failed to deny he received the duplicate service copies sent to his address by mail, does not change the analysis. Even assuming proper followup [sic] mail service was provided, a proper substituted service must precede mail service under section 415.20 and the record demonstrates this did not occur."].)

The trial court has a large amount of discretion to set aside a default judgment. (See Benjamin v. Dalmo Mfg. Co. (1948) 31 Cal.2d 523, 525.) Courts favor "orders excusing defaults and permitting controversies to be heard upon their merits." (Ibid.) The Court thus exercises its discretion to vacate the default judgment as void based on defective service of summons. Accordingly, TGL's Motion to Vacate Entry of Default and Default Judgment is granted. TGL's related request to quash the purported service of summons is granted. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied.

Hill-Alamina's Motion to Compel the Deposition of Rock Miller, P.E. is DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

This is a wrongful death action. On January 29, 2025, Plaintiff Brian Anakin Hill-Alamina, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Angela Hill, individually and as wrongful death beneficiary and successor-in-interest to decedent Brian Alamina, ("Plaintiff") filed this action against Defendants City of Lakewood, City of Cerritos, County of Los Angeles, State of California, Greystar California, Inc., and Does 1 to 100.

The Complaint alleges that Brian Alamina ("Decedent") was killed in a motor vehicle accident on roadways that were negligently owned, designed, and maintained by Defendants such that there was an unreasonable risk of harm to Decedent. Specifically, in June 2024, Decedent "was traveling eastbound on Del Amo Boulevard between Norwalk Boulevard and Claretta Avenue when a vehicle operated by Yaseerarafat G. Shaikh attempted a U-turn [from the westbound side of the road] and collided with [him]." (Compl., P. 1.)

The Complaint alleges causes of action for 1) Negligence, 2) Premises Liability, 3) Negligence - Dangerous Condition of Public Property, 4) Survival Action (erroneously labeled as "Third Cause of Action"), and 5) Wrongful Death. Various amendments, cross-pleadings, and dismissals have been filed. As amended, the Complaint asserts claims against Defendants the City of Lakewood, the City of Cerritos, The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, Greystar California, Inc., Yasseerarafat G. Shaikh, Mirza Mahejabin, B9 MF 12350 Del Amo LLC, and Monterey Lakewood Owner, LLC (collectively, "Defendants"). The Defendants have filed a total of five cross-claims directed amongst themselves.

On August 20, 2026, the Court granted 1) Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant City of Lakewood's (hereinafter, "Lakewood") Motion for Summary Judgment, and 2) Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant City of Cerritos' (hereinafter, "Cerritos") Motion for Summary Judgment. (8/20/26 Minute Order.) Plaintiff now moves to compel the deposition of expert witness Rock Miller. No opposition has been filed as of August 26, 2026. This Motion was originally set to be heard on November 24, 2026. On July 16, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Compel the Deposition of Rock Miller. However, the Court set the hearing on this Motion to today's date. (7/16/26 Minute Order.)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves the Court to "compel the presence of Rock Miller for a deposition in this matter on or before the date of July 24, 2026." (Notice, 2:5-6.) Plaintiff argues that the Declaration of Rock Miller was offered by both Cerritos and Lakewood in support of their respective Motions for Summary Judgment (MSJs). Plaintiff requests a limited deposition of Mr. Miller in order to question him regarding 1) which of his opinions support which MSJ, and 2) which materials were provided by which defendant. Further, Plaintiff wishes to question Mr. Miller on the methodology used to form his opinions--Mr. Miller's depend on a "site visit" but do not describe the methodology with detail. Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff will be prejudiced if he must oppose Cerritos' and Lakewood's respective MSJs by July 31, 2026 without taking Mr. Miller's deposition.

Firstly, the Court notes that Cerritos and Lakewood filed their MSJs on June 11, 2026 and June 12, 2026, respectively. Plaintiff did not file this Motion until July 14, 2026, around 2 weeks before the oppositions were due. There is no explanation for this delay. The Court has ruled on Cerritos' and Lakewood's MSJs on August 20, 2026. (8/20/26 Minute Order.) Further, the Court notes that it did not necessarily rely on the Declaration of Rock Miller in ruling on the MSJs. The Court finds that the issues presented in this Motion are now moot. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Deposition of Rock Miller, P.E. is DENIED as MOOT.

Case Number: 26NWCV00997 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Dept: L Defendants Alfredo III Gomez and Freddy Gomez's Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from Plaintiffs' Complaint is GRANTED with 30 days leave to amend. Defendants to give notice.

Background

This is an action for motor vehicle negligence regarding an accident that occurred on March 24, 2024. On March 18, 2026, Plaintiffs Raquel Lopez and Juliana Huerta filed this action against Defendants Ean Holdings LLC, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., Alfredo III Gomez, Freddy Gomez, and Does 1 to 30. The Complaint alleges two causes of action for 1) Motor Vehicle Negligence, and 2) General Negligence. Defendants Alfredo III Gomez and Freddy Gomez (hereinafter, "Defendants") now move to strike portions of the Complaint.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 436 states the following: "The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a)¿Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b)¿Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 436.)

Meet and Confer

Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, subdivision (a) requires meeting and conferring "in person, by telephone, or by video conference." The parties met and conferred via letter and telephone regarding the issues in this Motion but were unable to come to a resolution. (Greigo Decl., P.P. 4-5, 8, Exh. 1.) The Court finds that the meet and confer requirement has been met.

Discussion

Defendants seek to strike the following portions of the Complaint pertaining to punitive damages: