Self & Bhamre v. Moza CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Jan 13, 2026 No. G063757Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a default judgment obtained via service by publication was void because the plaintiff failed to use superior methods of service despite having actual knowledge of the defendant's address.

Issues

Whether a default judgment is void when the plaintiff fails to mail the summons and complaint to a known address before obtaining service by publication.
Whether the failure to effectuate proper service of process is a jurisdictional defect that can be raised for the first time on appeal.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is no dispute the firm knew Moza’s Newport Beach address throughout the publication period but never mailed the summons and complaint to Moza.”

“If a defendant’s address is ascertainable, a method of service superior to publication must be employed.”

“Without proper service of the summons and complaint, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant.”

Filed 1/13/26 Self & Bhamre v. Moza CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SELF & BHAMRE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063757

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2021- 01179085) JOSEPH MOZA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, John C. Gastelum, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Cliff Dean Schneider for Appellant. Self & Bhamre and Hema C. Bhamre for Respondent.

Joseph Moza appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate a default judgment. He contends the summons and complaint were not properly served by publication because they were not mailed to his known address. Though the issue is raised for the first time on appeal, it is jurisdictional and we therefore reach it. As we agree with Moza, we reverse.

FACTS Bhamre is a principal attorney of Self & Bhamre, a firm that represented Moza in an employment matter. The firm sued Moza in January 2021 for unpaid fees. Before the firm served the summons and complaint, Bhamre learned in July 2021 that Moza lived and worked at an address on Ebb Tide Circle in Newport Beach. The firm attempted to personally serve Moza at the address more than 10 times—once, the door was answered by an occupant who said it was “hard to know” when Moza would be home. Nonetheless, the firm obtained an April 2022 order authorizing 1 service by publication. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.50.) In the firm’s application, Bhamre acknowledged the firm’s knowledge of Moza’s Newport Beach address and its efforts to personally serve him there. But Bhamre did not state whether the firm had attempted substitute service or service by mail with notice and acknowledgement. The trial court entered default judgment against Moza in February 2023. The firm mailed a copy of the judgment to Moza at the Newport Beach address. The trial court denied Moza’s motion to set aside the default judgment on September 29, 2023, rejecting his claims of excusable neglect

Self & Bhamre v. Moza CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SELF & BHAMRE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

SCOTT, J.

MOTOIKE, ACTING P. J.

SANCHEZ, J.

AI Brief