Wall v. Pekarovic CA2/6

Filed 9/4/25 Wall v. Pekarovic CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

RICHARD WALL et al., 2d Civ. No. B339739 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2020- Plaintiffs and Respondents, 00540946-CU-PN-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

JOHN A. PEKAROVIC,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant John A. Pekarovic appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate a void judgment. He contends the trial court erred when it construed his motion as one for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In March 2020, respondents Richard Wall and Margaret Wall (the Walls) filed a lawsuit against Pekarovic. The Walls alleged that Pekarovic, a licensed civil and structural engineer, was professionally negligent in his design of a second story to the Walls’ residence.

After seven unsuccessful attempts to personally serve Pekarovic, the Walls filed a proof of service indicating Pekarovic was served via substitute service in June 2020, at a residence in Coronado (the Coronado property). The process server stated that service was made upon a “ ‘John Doe’, refused to give full name, friend.” Pekarovic did not file a responsive pleading. Default was entered against him in August 2020. In June 2023, the trial court entered judgment by default against Pekarovic in the amount of $200,634. Over six months later, in February 2024, Pekarovic filed a “motion to set aside default judgment” (Code Civ. Proc.,1 § 473.5). Pekarovic claimed he did not reside at the Coronado property at the time of service, had not resided at the Coronado property “for over three and a half years,” and had sold the Coronado property in April 2021. He became aware of the Walls’ lawsuit “because the person residing at [the Coronado property] in June of 2020 forwarded me a copy of the proof of service by mail.” Pekarovic asserted substitute service was improper and claimed he lacked actual notice of the lawsuit. In opposition, the Walls’ attorney Mark B. Plummer declared that after several unsuccessful attempts to personally serve Pekarovic, he mailed a copy of the summons, complaint, and accompanying cover letter to Pekarovic at the Coronado property in June 2020. Plummer obtained the address from Pekarovic’s licensing details with the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists. Pekarovic called him thereafter, they discussed the lawsuit, Pekarovic “confirmed his address,” and Pekarovic informed Plummer that he had lived in