Earnix International Trading v. Zhang CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Nov 10, 2022 No. B316331Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to quash service and vacate default judgment, holding that the process server's proof of service constituted substantial evidence of valid service despite the defendant's conflicting testimony.

Issues

Whether the trial court's finding of valid service was supported by substantial evidence.
Whether the trial court erred in its credibility determination regarding the conflicting evidence of service.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Patini’s second proof of service, executed under penalty of perjury, constituted substantial evidence of proper service of the summons and complaint.”

“The trial court considered the evidence and impliedly made a credibility determination, crediting Patini over Zhang.”

“Zhang has failed to establish any basis for disturbing the trial court’s determination that he was properly served with the summons and complaint.”

Filed 11/10/22 Earnix International Trading v. Zhang CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

EARNIX INTERNATIONAL B316331 TRADING, LTD., (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20STCV14346) Plaintiff and Respondent,

KEVIN ZHANG,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Malcom Mackey, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Gene H. Shioda and James Alexander Kim for Defendant and Appellant. Cabanday Law Group and Orlando F. Cabanday for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and Respondent Earnix International Trading Inc. (Earnix) invested in defendant and appellant Kevin Zhang’s real estate project. Earnix later filed a complaint against Zhang for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and other related claims.1 After the clerk entered default judgment, Zhang moved to vacate the judgment and quash service of the summons, claiming he was never personally served. The trial court denied Zhang’s motion, his subsequent motion for reconsideration, and his motion to set aside/vacate default. Zhang timely appealed.2 Because the trial court’s order denying Zhang’s motion to quash and vacate the default judgment was supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Earnix filed a request for entry of default judgment on June 5, 2020, based on a June 4, 2020 proof of service in which an unregistered process server, Michael Patini, swore he personally served Zhang on April 29, 2020, and Zhang’s failure to respond to the complaint. The request was rejected by the clerk on June 11, 2020 because the proof of service form used by Patini was not the correct form for proof of service of a summons and complaint.

Earnix International Trading v. Zhang CA2/4

AI Brief

KEVIN ZHANG,

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CURREY, J.

COLLINS, J.

AI Brief