Name: 						

Address:					

Telephone:					

		Defendant In Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF STANISLAUS

					,
	Plaintiff,
	vs.
					,
	Defendant	)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)	Case No.: 					

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT, IF ENTERED:
	 CCP §473(b)
	 CCP §473.5
             Civ.  §1788.61
	 CCP §473(d)
	 AND QUASH SERVICE OF
		SUMMONS (CCP §418.10);
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION

Date:			
Dept/Time:
			
	)
)	
Date Complaint was filed: 				

TO EACH PARTY AND TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT at the above-captioned date and time and department in the courthouse located at  801 11th Street, Modesto, California, that Defendant will move the court for an order requesting that the Default and, if entered, Default Judgment be set aside,  This motion is made on the following grounds:
•	Inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect (CCP §473(b));
•	Service of the Summons did not result in actual notice (CCP §473.5);
•	Service of the Summons did not result in actual notice  in time to defend action brought by a debt buyer (Civ. §1788.61);
•	The judgment and/or default is void (CCP §473(d));
•																						.
This motion will be based upon this notice, the attached points and authorities and declaration of
				(name), and the records and files in this action.
Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(C) the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 1:30 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative rulings for the department may be downloaded off the court’s website,(www.stanct.org)  If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number, (209) 530-3162 (Calendar line), prior to 4:00 p.m., or by emailing at civil.tentatives@stanct.org . Email requests must be made prior to 4:00 p.m. AND confirmed by return email. If you do not receive confirmation email from the clerk, you MUST call (209) 530-3162 to request your hearing by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.

Dated:			

	

                                      , In Pro Per

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Set Aside
I.  Background
	On 			(date), Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this court. On 
			 (date) this court entered a default,  and on 			(date) a judgment was entered against the Defendant. The moving defendant is now asking for a set aside of that default and, if entered, default judgment  as well as an order quashing service of the Summons for lack of jurisdiction.

II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
 (If checked paragraphs A – D are argued) Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §473(b), the court should set aside this adverse judgment or ruling based on inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

A. Grounds for Relief. On application, the court may, on any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b)). This motion is filed within a reasonable period of time, not exceeding six months after entry of the default.

B. Policy of Law Favors Trial on Merits. The policy of the law is that controversies should be heard and disposed of on their merits (Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 681, 694–703, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 351; Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 900, 909, 95 Cal. Rptr. 417).

C. Court Has Wide Discretion in Granting Relief. A trial court has wide discretion to grant relief under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473 (Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 900, 909, 95 Cal. Rptr. 417).

D. Liberal Construction of Statute. Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) is a remedial measure to be liberally construed, and any doubts existing as to the propriety of setting aside a default thereunder will be resolved in favor of a hearing on the merits (Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 900, 910, 95 Cal. Rptr. 417).

 (If checked paragraphs E – H are argued) The court should grant defendant’s motion for relief pursuant to CCP §473.5 because he/she received no actual notice of the action in time to defend, he/she has filed a timely motion for relief, and the default and default judgment was not caused by the plaintiff’s avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect.

E. Motion for Relief From Default for Lack of Actual Notice. When service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action and a default or default judgment has been entered against him or her in the action, the party may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action (Code Civ. Proc. § 473.5(a)).

F. Court May Grant Relief on Timely Motion if Defendant Not at Fault. On a finding by the court that the motion was made within the two year time period permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section 473.5(a) and that his or her lack of actual notice in time to defend the action was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect, it may set aside the default or default judgment on whatever terms as may be just and allow the party to defend the action (Code Civ. Proc. § 473.5(c); Goya v. P.E.R.U. Enterprises (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 886, 890–891, 151 Cal. Rptr. 258).

G. Granting of Relief Within Discretion of Trial Court. Whether or not relief should be granted under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473.5 is a matter within the discretion of the trial court (Brockman v. Wagenbach (1957) 152 Cal. App. 2d 603, 611, 313 P.2d 659).

H. Policy Favors Application for Relief. Unless inexcusable neglect is clear, the policy favoring trial on the merits prevails over the general rule of deference to the trial court’s exercise of discretion, and doubts are resolved in favor of the application for relief from default (Tunis v. Barrow (1986) 184 Cal. App. 3d 1069, 1079, 229 Cal. Rptr. 389).

 (If checked paragraphs I-K are argued) The court should grant defendant’s motion for relief pursuant to Civil Code § 1788.61 because he/she received no actual notice of the action in time to defend against an action brought by a debt buyer, he/she has filed a timely motion for relief, and the default and default judgment was not caused by the plaintiff’s avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect.

I. Motion for Relief From Default for Lack of Actual Notice. When service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend an action brought by a debt buyer and a default or default judgment has been entered against him or her in the action, the party may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action (Civ. Code § 1788.61(a)(1)). 

J. Court May Grant Relief on Timely Motion if Defendant Not at Fault. On a finding by the court that the motion was made within time period(s) permitted by Civ. Code § 1788.61(a)(2)(A), Civ. Code § 1788.61(a)(2)(B) and/or Civ. Code § 1788.61(a)(3)(A), and that his or her lack of actual notice in time to defend the action was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect, it may set aside the default or default judgment on whatever terms as may be just and allow the party to defend the action (Civ. Code § 1788.61(c)).

K. Court may consider evidence presented by either party. Either party may introduce, and the court may consider, evidence in support of its motion, including evidence relating to the process server who appears on the proof of service of the summons and complaint. (Civ. Code § 1788.61(b))

 (If checked paragraphs L – N are argued) The court should grant defendant’s motion to set aside the default and default judgment, if entered on the ground that it is void because, although its invalidity may not appear from an examination of the judgment roll, it is nonetheless void in fact in that the summons and complaint were never validly served on the defendant, and the defendant lacked actual notice of this lawsuit

L. Statutory Power to Set Aside Void Judgment. The court may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d)).

M. Inherent Power to Set Aside Judgment Not Void on Its Face but Void in Fact. The law is settled that courts of record have inherent power to set aside a void judgment whether or not it is void on its face (Rogers v. Silverman (1989) 216 Cal. App. 3d 1114, 1122, 265 Cal. Rptr. 286). As described in the attached Declaration, the service of the Summons was improper, depriving the court of jurisdiction as to the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant is filing this motion within a reasonable period of time within six months of learning of the existence of this lawsuit.

N. Court Has Duty to Set Aside Judgment. It is well settled that when an application to vacate and set aside a judgment that is not void on its face but void in fact is made within a reasonable time after its rendition and is based on a sufficient showing, it is within the power of the court, and its duty, to set it aside (Smith v. Bratman (1917) 174 Cal. 518, 520, 163 P. 892).

 (If checked paragraphs O – R are argued) The court should set aside the default and, if entered, default judgment in this action as void on its face because  no proof of service was filed   this is a consumer credit debt, however no declaration of venue has been filed and the complaint is not verified.

O. Relief From Void Judgment or Order. The court may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d)). 

P. Inherent Power to Set Aside Judgment Void on Its Face. A court has inherent power, independent of statute, to set aside a judgment or order that is void on its face (People v. Greene (1887) 74 Cal. 400, 405–406, 16 P. 197; Hendrix v. Hendrix (1955) 130 Cal. App. 2d 379, 383, 279 P.2d 58).

Q. Test for Establishing That Judgment Is Void on Its Face. A judgment or order is void on its face when its invalidity appears from an examination of the judgment roll (People v. Davis (1904) 143 Cal. 673, 676, 77 P. 651; Carrasco v. Craft (1985) 164 Cal. App. 3d 796, 808, 210 Cal. Rptr. 599).
R. Judgment Roll When Complaint Not Answered. If the complaint is not answered by any defendant, the following papers, without being attached together, constitute the judgment roll: the summons, with the affidavit or proof of service; the complaint; the request for entry of default with a memorandum endorsed thereon that the default of the defendant in not answering was entered, and a copy of the judgment; if defendant has appeared by demurrer, and the demurrer has been overruled, then notice of the overruling thereof served on defendant’s attorney, together with proof of the service; and in case the service is made by publication, the affidavit for publication of summons, and the order directing the publication of summons (Code Civ. Proc. § 670(a)).

 (If checked paragraphs S-V are argued) The court should quash service of the summons due to lack of jurisdiction.

S. Motion to Quash Service of Summons. On or before the last day of his or her time to plead, or within such further time as the court may for good cause allow, a defendant may serve and file a notice of motion to quash service of summons on the ground the court lacks jurisdiction over him or her (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10(a)(1)).

T. Compliance With Statutory Provisions Governing Service of Process Is Required. Service of summons in conformance with the mode prescribed by statute is deemed jurisdictional, and, absent such service, no jurisdiction is acquired by the court in the particular action (Renoir v. Redstar Corp. (2004) 123 Cal. App. 4th 1145, 1150, 20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 603; Schering Corp. v. Superior Court (1975) 52 Cal. App. 3d 737, 741, 125 Cal. Rptr. 337; Sternbeck v. Buck (1957) 148 Cal. App. 2d 829, 832, 307 P.2d 970).

U. Strict Compliance Necessary for Substituted or Constructive Service. A court has no authority to render judgment on the basis of substituted or constructive service of the summons when statutory requirements have not been strictly complied with (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 403, 412, 44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 338 (improper service on personal manager); Zirbes v. Stratton (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1407, 1416, 232 Cal. Rptr. 653 (substituted service); Eagle Electric Mfg. Co. v. Keener (1966) 247 Cal. App. 2d 246, 251, 55 Cal. Rptr. 444 (same); Bank of America v. Carr (1956) 138 Cal. App. 2d 727, 737, 292 P.2d 587 (constructive service)).

V. General Appearance After Default Judgment Does Not Validate Defective Service. The general appearance after entry of a default judgment by a defendant who was defectively served with summons does not make the defective service retroactively valid (In re Marriage of Smith (1982) 135 Cal. App. 3d 543, 545, 547–552, 185 Cal. Rptr. 411).

 THE DEFENDANT ADDITIONALLY ARGUES:
																																																																																																																																																																																								 Continued on the attached declaration 

	For the aforementioned reasons, Defendant requests set aside of the default, and if applicable, default judgment entered against him or her   and requests that the Service of the Summons be set aside for lack of jurisdiction.

Dated:			

(Sign)	

(Print)	

                                        , In Pro Per

DECLARATION

I, 				, am the                                                         in this matter, and I declare the following in support of my motion to set aside the default in my case:

CONTENTS OF THE PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
1.	I have reviewed the court file, and   there is    there is not a Proof of Service of Summons filed in this case. (If there is not a Proof of Service of Summons filed, paragraphs 2-7 below are not asserted as part of this declaration).
2.	The Plaintiff’s Proof of Service of Summons states that  I was personally served   I was served by substituted service.
3.	Service allegedly took place on 			(date) at 		 (time) at 										 (address).
4.	The Proof of Service of Summons describes the person served as being named
		                            		, and having the following physical description: 																								
 There was no physical description provided.
5.	The Proof of Service of Summons identifies the server as  a registered process server 
 a Sheriff’s Department employee   a private individual.
6.	As to the service of the Summons: (check only one):
•	I do not contest the manner of service. I was served as described in the Proof of Service of Summons. (If checked, paragraph 7, below, is not asserted or claimed.)
•	Although the Proof of Service of Summons claims that I was personally served, I was not served with the Summons and Complaint for the reasons described in the following paragraphs.
•	Although the Proof of Service of Summons claims that I was served by substituted service, I did not live or work at the address I where substituted service allegedly took place, as described in the following paragraphs.
•	Service of the Summons was invalid because:																																																						
7.	The following facts support my contention in paragraph 6:																																																																												 
Continued on Attachment 7 to the Declaration.

ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAWSUIT

8.	I first learned about this lawsuit on or around 			(date). The way I first learned about this lawsuit was being served with the Summons and Complaint; or  as follows:																																																																							
Continued on Attachment 8 to the Declaration.
9.	 I was not evading service, so my lack of actual notice of this case is not the result of evasion of service.

INADVERTANCE, SURPRISE, MISTAKE, EXCUSABLE NEGLECT OR LACK OF NOTICE

10.	I contend that my failure to respond was the result of inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect or lack of notice for the following reasons:																																																																																																																
Continued on Attachment 10 to the Declaration.
11.	But for the above facts, I would have filed the Proposed Answer, attached as Exhibit A.
12.	 I additionally wish the court to consider the following when evaluating my request to set aside the default:																																																																																																																																																																																																																																							
 Continued in Attachment 12
13.	 I have attached the following exhibits to this declaration in support of my motion to set aside the default:
a.	 Exhibit A: Proposed Answer
b.	 Exhibit B: (describe)								
c.	 Exhibit C: (describe)								
d.	 Exhibit D: (describe)								
e.	 Exhibit E: (describe)								

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated:			

(Sign)	

(Print)	
                                       , In Pro Per

Proposed Answer
Exhibit A