Cal. Capital Ins. Co. v. Hoehn CA3

Filed 3/27/25 Cal. Capital Ins. Co. v. Hoehn CA3 Opinion on remand from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY C092450 et al., (Super. Ct. No. SCV0026851) Plaintiffs and Respondents, OPINION ON REMAND v.

CORY MICHAEL HOEHN,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2020, appellant Cory Michael Hoehn filed a motion to set aside a 2011 default judgment. The trial court denied the motion, ruling it was untimely as to a theory of improper service of process, and unpersuasive as to a theory of extrinsic fraud. This court affirmed, reasoning that Hoehn’s theory of improper service was untimely under Court of Appeal precedent, and Hoehn’s factual allegations regarding extrinsic fraud, even if true, did not entitle him to relief. Our Supreme Court granted Hoehn’s petition for review, and, in California Capital Ins. Co. v. Hoehn (2024) 17 Cal.5th 207 (Hoehn), abrogated and disapproved of

1

the precedent that this court followed in ruling that Hoehn’s theory of improper service was untimely. (Id. at p. 226.) Additionally, our Supreme Court concluded Hoehn’s second theory for relief encompassed a claim of extrinsic mistake, and it was unclear whether this court would have reached the same conclusion to affirm had we considered that component of the theory. (Id. at pp. 226-227.) Our Supreme Court reversed this court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. We vacated the prior decision and have reconsidered the matter without supplemental briefing on remand by the parties. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200(b)(2).) Hoehn requires reversal of the trial court’s untimeliness ruling. Accordingly, we will remand the matter for the trial court to conduct further proceedings on Hoehn’s motion attacking the default judgment. I. BACKGROUND In March 2010, California Capital Insurance Company (Capital Insurance) filed a civil action alleging that Hoehn’s negligence caused a June 2009 fire in a Roseville apartment building where Hoehn lived at the time. Pursuing a subrogation claim, Capital Insurance sought reimbursement of over $470,000 the company paid to the owner of the damaged apartment building under an insurance policy. In April 2011, after Capital Insurance provided proof of substituted service of process on Hoehn, the trial court entered default judgment against Hoehn. The proof included a declaration under penalty of perjury by a registered California process server, stating that—on five occasions between March 27 and April 1, 2010—she attempted to serve Hoehn personally at his home in San Mateo. On the fifth unsuccessful attempt, on April 1, 2010, the process server “[s]ub-served to” Hoehn’s girlfriend (a “[c]o- [o]ccupant”) at the residence, as Hoehn was “not home.” The process server further declared that, the day after substituted service, she mailed copies of the complaint and summons to Hoehn at his San Mateo residence.