A California appellate court has reversed a lower court's decision to vacate a default judgment in a contentious motor vehicle negligence case. The complaint, filed by Mary Ramos and Antonio Baker on May 8, 2019, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Brett M. Oros, alleges that Oros ran a red light and caused a collision. This reversal stems from the trial court's improper application of Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5.
The plaintiffs initially sought entry of default on February 18, 2020, but faced procedural hurdles. On March 26, 2020, Connecticut State Marshal Holly Bryk signed a proof of service indicating she had personally served Oros at an address in North Haven, Connecticut. However, Oros contested this claim, stating he was never served and was living elsewhere at the time. Despite these assertions, the trial court vacated the default judgment under section 473.5—a statute applicable when service fails to result in actual notice—without resolving whether Oros had indeed been served.
Oros argued that he was not present at the George Street address on March 18, 2020—the date Bryk claimed to have served him—and provided evidence that he was stationed as a United States Marine in Hartford during that period. He further stated he only learned about the lawsuit in September 2023 through his attorney.
The appellate court found that section 473.5 does not apply when a defendant claims they were never served at all and criticized the trial court for failing to resolve this key credibility dispute before vacating the judgment. The appellate judges emphasized that determining whether Oros was actually served is crucial before considering any equitable or statutory grounds for relief from default.
Ramos and Baker maintain that Bryk’s description of the person she served matches Oros’s appearance and submitted declarations supporting their claim. They seek damages amounting to $212,447 for injuries sustained from the alleged negligence.
The appellate decision mandates that the trial court reassess whether Oros was properly served before deciding on any potential relief from default judgment. This remand underscores the necessity for clear factual determinations in legal proceedings involving disputed service claims.
Representing Ramos and Baker are attorneys Robin E. Paley and Shivali Kasbekar from Law Offices of Robin E. Paley; representing Oros are Neil Tardiff and Robert Lee Reisinger from Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar. The case is presided over by Judge Daniel M. Crowley under Case ID B330395.