| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion to vacate default and judgment
construction of pleadings will not ordinarily be invoked to sustain a pleading defective in any material respect for allegations of fraud. (Id.) However, less specificity is required of fraud claims when a defendant must necessarily have more information or knowledge concerning the facts of the controversy than a plaintiff. (Alfaro v. Community Housing System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384.)
Thus, the Demurrer to the fifth cause of action for fraud is sustained with leave to amend.
Defendant is ordered to serve notice.
5. 2025-1517586 Tentative posted for 5/13/26 calendar. Matter continued to Je Beaute, Inc. 5/20/26 for lack of interpreter. vs. Guo
6. 2022-1262809 The Court grants Defendants Wissam Ismail and Omer Ismail’s Haddad vs. Motion to vacate the 7/20/23 default and the 10/26/23 Judgment Ismail entered against them on Plaintiff Wasfi Haddad’s Complaint for breach of contract.
Evidentiary Objections The Court overrules Defendants’ objection nos. 1-5.
Legal Standard
Without valid service of summons, the court never acquires jurisdiction over defendant. Hence, the statutory ground for the motion to quash is that the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant. (CCP § 418.10(a)(1); see Kremerman v. White (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 358, 371—”[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. Thus, a default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void” (internal quotes and citation omitted).)
“When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process the burden is on the plaintiff to prove ... the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 CA4th 403, 413; see Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
There is no time limit to bring a motion for relief from a default judgment in the original action on the ground a judgment, though valid on its face, is void for lack of proper service—cases to the contrary have been disapproved. (CCP § 473(d); California Capital Insurance Company v. Hoehn (2024) 17 Cal. 5th 207, 225, disapproving Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal. App. 4th 175.)
Some courts require defendants seeking to vacate a default judgment to act with reasonable diligence after learning of that judgment. (See, e.g., Kramer v. Traditional Escrow, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 13, 37 [“diligence is measured from when a party discovers the default or default judgment”].) Other courts have cast doubt on the imposition of such a requirement. (See County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1229, [“ ‘[w]hat is initially void is ever void and life may not be breathed into it by lapse of time’ “; California Capital Ins. Co. v. Hoehn (2024) 17 Cal.5th 207, 225, filing the motion within 3 months of learning of the judgment is per-ser reasonable.)
Merits It is Plaintiff’s burden to show proper service. Plaintiff relies on the Proof of Service filed on 7/18/23 at ROA 19 and 21. They each contain declarations of the process server Ali M. Said. He testifies that he personally served both Defendants with the Summons and Complaint on May 24, 2023, at 1:17 p.m. and May 27, 2023, at 9:22 a.m. at 5 Estates Drive, Villa Park, California 92861. (See Said Decls. attached to the proofs of service.)
As to Defendant Wissam Ismail, documentary evidence establishes that he resided and worked in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, throughout May 2023. His Emirates NBD bank statement reflects numerous in-person transactions in Dubai during that month, including on May 24, 2023—the very date the Proof of Service claims he was personally served in Villa Park. Those transactions include purchases at Starbucks, Majid Al Futtaim Hypermarket, and Royal Dining Catering Services—all of which required his physical presence in Dubai. (Wissam Ismail Decl., ¶¶ 6–8, 10 & Ex. B.) Mr. Ismail also held a residential lease at Central Park Towers in the Dubai International Financial Centre, commencing January 25, 2023, and received regular salary deposits from his Dubai employer, KOI Technologies FZCO. (Wissam Ismail Decl., ¶¶ 4 5, 9 & Exs. A–B.)
As to Defendant Omer Ismail, official Jordanian government border records establish that Omer Ismail has been continuously present in Jordan since June 11, 2018. A Proof of Entry/Exit Form issued by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Public Security Directorate, Residency and Borders Department, dated December 7, 2025, confirms that: (1) Mr. Omer Ismail’s last recorded entry into Jordan was on June 11, 2018, arriving from Britain via Queen Alia International Airport; (2) no departures from Jordan have been recorded since that date; and (3) Mr. Omer Ismail’s current status is “Inside the country.” (Omer Ismail Decl., ¶¶ 6–9; Alazzazi Decl., ¶¶ 2–4 & Ex. B [certified translation].)
Souad Kassis, the estranged spouse of Wissam Ismail, resided at 5 Estates Drive in May 2023. She confirms that no process server came to the property on May 27, 2023. (Kassis Decl., ¶¶ 2, 4.) No one showed up at the door that day to serve papers. The encounter described in the Proof of Service did not happen. (Id., ¶ 4.) Ms. Kassis further confirms that Omer Ismail was not present at the property on May 27, 2023, and to her knowledge has never been present at that address. (Id., ¶ 5.)
The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to show personal service was actually accomplished.
Plaintiff argues in opposition that Defendants did not act with diligence because they knew Plaintiff sued them. But Plaintiff’s evidence does not show actual knowledge of the lawsuit. But even if it did show actual knowledge in April of 2023, this is not a substitute for proper service. When service is improper then the issue of action notice of the lawsuit is irrelevant. Actual notice of the action alone is not a substitute for proper service and is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. “[N]o California appellate court has gone so far as to uphold a service of process solely on the ground the defendant received actual notice when there has been a complete failure to comply with the statutory requirements for service.” (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 392, citing Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 414.)
Further, Defendants were diligent in filing this Motion after learning of the default judgment. On September 12, 2025, court officers arrived at Omer Ismail’s property in Jordan to assess its value for auction. Both Defendants learned of the California judgment that day. (Wissam Ismail Decl., ¶ 12; Omer Ismail Decl., ¶ 10.) Omer Ismail immediately retained Jordanian counsel, Ali Al- Hasani, Esq., who filed an appeal with the Amman Court of Appeal on September 23, 2025. Enforcement of the judgment is now stayed. (Omer Ismail Decl., ¶ 11.) Defendants retained California counsel on November 18, 2025, and now bring this motion at the earliest opportunity. (Id.)
Thus, the Motion is granted.
But the issue remains whether Defendants have now appeared and must respond to the Complaint.
Parties are ordered to come prepared to discuss this issue with the Court.