Unspecified

Defendant's business was located. Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. states, "In the absence of a voluntary submission to the authority of the court, compliance with the statutes governing service of process is essential to establish that court's personal jurisdiction over a defendant. When a defendant challenges that jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service." (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-1440.) Tentatively, the Court plans to GRANT, Defendant Yinming Liu's motion to vacate the default and default judgment entered against Yinming Liu. The Court notes that this order does not apply to the other Defendants, as no other Defendants moved to vacate default/judgment.

/ / / The Court will have the following questions for defense counsel: Why is this motion brought as an ex parte? When did defense counsel learn about this diagnosis and the basis for this ex parte? Where is Exhibit A, the doctor's note, referred to in the lawyer declaration? The Court continued this matter in May of this year. Was this information not available at that time? What have the parties completed or done since the continuance in May. The Court would like to know, specific depositions, specific discovery, dates of mediation, etc. Can the defendant's trial testimony be taken by video? / / / / / | Home -->)" -->