Falkenstein v. Shipco Transport SDN BHD CA2/2

Filed 6/25/14 Falkenstein v. Shipco Transport SDN BHD CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

JOHN FALKENSTEIN, B251183

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NC042676) v.

SHIPCO TRANSPORT SDN BHD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ross M. Klein, Judge. Affirmed.

Bullivant Houser Bailey and Norman J. Ronneberg, Jr., for Defendant and Appellant.

Cook Collection Attorneys and David J. Cook for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Defendant and appellant Shipco Transport SDN BHD (Shipco) appeals from a trial court order denying its motion to vacate a default judgment in favor of plaintiff and respondent John Falkenstein (Falkenstein). We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 31, 2008, Falkenstein filed a complaint against Shipco and others. According to the complaint, Shipco and/or the other defendants “owned, operated, leased, rented, used, borrowed, maintained, inspected, supervised, loaded, imported, packaged, and controlled” a specific cargo container, which fell and caused injury to Falkenstein. Shipco never answered the complaint, and a default was entered against it. On December 17, 2009, a default judgment was entered in favor of Falkenstein and against Shipco. On May 15, 2013, Shipco filed a motion for relief from default judgment. No copy of the motion was provided to the Court of Appeal. Falkenstein opposed the motion. After taking the matter under submission, on July 25, 2013, the trial court denied Shipco’s motion. It rejected Shipco’s apparent challenge to service. It further found the instant case distinguishable from Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823 (Falahati). And, the trial court declined to exercise equitable relief. Shipco’s timely appeal ensued. DISCUSSION Relying heavily upon Falahati, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th 823, Shipco argues that the default judgment was void because it was based upon a complaint that was not well- pleaded and failed to properly apprise Shipco of the nature of Falkenstein’s claims. We review this issue de novo. (Falahati, supra, at p. 828.) We agree with the trial court that Falahati is distinguishable. In that case, the Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order denying a defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment because “[t]he complaint on which [the default judgment was] based