Solorzano v. Uriostegui CA3

Filed 5/29/24 Solorzano v. Uriostegui CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

EDGAR SOLORZANO, C098461

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CVCV2200201) v.

LAMBERTO URIOSTEGUI,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal by pro. per. defendant Lamberto Uriostegui (Uriostegui) from an order denying a motion to set aside a default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure1 section 473, subdivision (b). Although we affirm the order denying Uriostegui’s motion for relief from default, we nevertheless conclude that the resulting default judgment is void and must be vacated because it awarded damages in excess of that demanded in the complaint. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURE On March 14, 2022, plaintiff Edgar Solorzano (Solorzano) filed a complaint against defendants Uriostegui and Innovative Builders, Inc. (Innovative) alleging various

1 Undesignated section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

causes of action arising from his employment with Innovative, including failure to pay wages. Uriostegui was personally served with a copy of the summons and complaint on April 14, 2022. After reviewing the summons served upon him, Uriostegui concluded that it was defective because it had a stamped court seal, instead of the embossed seal that he believed was required under California law. Based on his belief that the summons was invalid, Uriostegui did not respond to the complaint. On July 7, 2022, Solorzano filed a request for entry of default, and the clerk of the trial court entered Uriostegui’s default on that date. Over six months later, on January 9, 2023, the trial court held a default prove-up hearing. On January 11, 2023, the court issued a judgment in favor of Solorzano in the amount of $108,139.95. On February 10, 2023, Uriostegui filed a motion to set aside the entry of default and default judgment under section 473, subdivision (b), and section 473.5. In support of the motion, Uriostegui argued that his failure to respond to the complaint was due to inadvertence or excusable neglect. Solorzano opposed the motion, arguing that the motion was untimely and, in any event, lacked merit. The trial court denied the motion and Uriostegui appealed. DISCUSSION I Denial of the Section 473 Motion Uriostegui argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for relief under section 473, subdivision (b). We disagree. Section 473, subdivision (b), permits a court to “relieve a party . . . from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (§ 473, subd. (b).) Because the