medical-dental dev. llc v pierson, et al. - medical dental ex parte application by pierson to...

8/3/2019 MEDICAL-DENTAL DEV. LLC v PIERSON, et al. - Medical Dental Ex Parte Application by Pierson to Continue Debtor E

1/29

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

7

SUPER IO R COURT O F TH E STATE O F CALIFO RN IAIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE COUNTY

CASE NO. 30-2010 -00367447DEF ENDANT, TODD P IE RSON 'S E XPAR TE APPLIC ATIO N TO CON TIN UE TH EDEBTOR EXAMINAT ION ; MEMORANDUMOF POINT AND AUTHOR IT IE S;DEC LARAT,?; O F TO DD PIERSO N.

1DATE: t l-~-(TIME: - 8 o I e e . .. . . . ~'I 3Q 4 - 1 N tDEPT: C- I'J

TO ALL PAR TIES AND TH EIR ATTORNEY O F RE.CORD:_ '6 S(!3CPLEASE TAKE NO TICE that on D ecem ber~, 2Q .11at~ )a.m ., or as soonC-fl .th ere afte r a s co un se l m ay b e h ea rd in D ep artm en t= et o f th e S up erio r C ou rt o f C alifo rn ia ,C ou nty of O range , loca ted a t 700 C ivic C enter D r. W est, S an ta An a, C A 9270 6,De fendant Todd P ie rson will move th is C ou rt fo r a n e x p arte a pp lica tio n to c on tin ue th edeb to r e xam in atio n in th e a lte rn ativ e an o rd er s ho rte nin g time .

Medical V8. Pierson et al E x p arte

---------------------- .... -....._

89

R IC HARD C . G ILBER T ISBN 85912LAW OFF ICES OF G ILB ERT & MARLOWE950 We st S ev en te en th S tre et, S uite s D & ESanta Ana, Ca lifo rn ia 92706-3573Tele phone: 7 14 -6 67 -1 038Fax: 714-667-2388A tto rney fo r De fendan t,Todd P ie rson

MED ICAL DENTAL DEVELOPMENT,LLCPlaintiff,

vs.TODD P IERSON , a n in div id ua l, DAV IDJOHNSON , a n in div id ua l, a nd RAIFISKANDER, an indiv idua l

Defendants.


2/29

678

1 : D A T E D : - - - - I , t ~ z J = + L - - - - 4 7 t . . . . - 1 l r \ l J -111213141516171819202122232425262728

-----._ .. _ ."~ Th is m otio n is b ased on th is N otice of M otion , th e attache d M em ora ndum of P oints

a nd A utho rities, th e D ecla ratio n of To dd P ierson, a s w ell as any a nd all e vid ence an d o ra la rg um ent as m ay be prese nte d at th e tim e of th e h earing of th is m otion .

R ic ha rd C . G ilb ertGilbert & MarloweA tto rney fo r De fendant' 11cx:{ e( ' F t . r . s t J r I

Medical vs. Pierson et al 2 E x p arte


3/29

6789

1011 I.1213141516171819202122232425262728

MEMORANPUM O F PO IN T AN P A UTHOR ITIES

STATEM EN T O F FAC TSPlaintiff is the landlord of the lessee and Defendant Todd Pierson hereinafter

"Defendant Pierson" along with the other two named co lessees and co defendants, DavidJohnson and Raif Iskander. 1

On or about April 28. 2010, Plaintiff filed the summons and complaint.purportedly, plaintiff served Defendant Pierson personally with the summons andcomplaint on that s ame date [emphas is added j. However, as set forth in both DefendantPierson's and his office manager, Sara Sullivan's declarations, Defendant Pierson was notactually present and that no service of any kind was actually effectuated.

Onor about September 13, 2010, Plaintiff files a proof of service alleged thepersonal service of Defendant Pierson. A copy of the exhibit is attached hereto as Exhibit2 .

On


4/29

6789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

On o r a bo ut N ovemb er 2 01 1, d efe nd ant P ie rs on re ceiv ed a n otice from th eCounty re ga rd in g a lie n o n h is p ro pe rty .

O n or about late O ctober 2011 t Defe nd an t P ie rs on wa s s erv ed w ith th e d eb to re xamin atio n. H e fo un d o ut for th e ve ry first tim e th at th ere w as a la wsu it a nd ju dgme ntagains t h im .

O n Decemb er 8 , 2 01 1, D efe nd an t P ie rso n file d a motio n to se t a sid e th e jud gmen t[d ate a nd time is su ed a fte r th e w ritin g o f th is mo tio n].II. ARGUMENTS

1.DEFENDAN T PIERSO N WOULD SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IF THE COURTD ENIES THE EX PARTE TO CONTINUE THE J UDGMENT DEBTOR EXAMIN ATION

Acc ord in gly , th e Califo rn ia Rule s o f Court, R ule 3 . 12 02 (c ) s ta te s th at "a n a pp lic an tmu st ma ke an a ffirma tiv e fa ctu al s how in g in a d ec la ra tio n c on ta in in g c ompete nt te stimonyb as ed o n p ers ona l kn ow le dg e o f irre pa ra ble h arm , immed ia te d an ge r, o r a ny o th ers ta tu to ry bas is fo r g rantin g re lie f e x parte re lie f. n As s et fo rth , Defe nd an t P ie rs on wouldsu ffe r ir reparab le ha rm i f th e co urt d oe s n ot g ra nt th e e x p arte o rd er o r in th e a lte rn ativea n o rd er sh orte nin g tim e to h ea r the motio n to co ntin ue th e d eb to r e xamin atio n. F irst, th ee xam in atio n is a n in tru sio n o f Defe nd an t P ie rs on 's rig hts to p riv ac y e sp ec ia lly in lig ht o fthe fact the fact that the valid ity of the judgm ent is being ra ised in a m otion to set asidef iled concur ren tly herewi th .

F urth er, if th e co urt d en ie s th e e x p arte o rd er, d efe nd an t P ie rs on wou ld b esu bje cte d to th e e nfo rceme nt o f th e ju dgme nt, n otw ith sta nd in g a motio n to s et a side th ejudgm ent to be heard. A ttached hereto as E xhib it 1 is a copy of the m otion to set asideth e ju dgme nt. A s d escrib ed fu lly in th e motio n, th e b asis fo r D efe nd an t P ie rso n's se ta sid e is th e fa ct th at th e c ou rt d id n ot h av e s ubje ct m atte r ju ris diction to en te r th ejudgm ent against h im . D efendant P ierson w as NEVER served w ith the summons and

Medical vs. pierson et al 4 E x parte


5/29

89

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

67

complaint. In the alternative, the judgment should be set aside on the basis of mistake orexcusable neglect.

Finally, if the court grants the ex parte, plaintiff would not be prejudiced. Currently,Plaintiff has ascertained information regarding Defendant Pierson's assets including hisplace of business (Plaintiff has conducted a tap of the till on December 6,2011).Moreover, plaintiff would have opportunity to seek another application for the debtorexamination i f an upon the court's denial of the motion to set aside.

CONCLUSIONFor the above-mentioned reasons, the court should grant the Defendant Pierson's

Ex Parte application for a motion to continue the debtor examination. In the alternative, anorder shortening time to hear said motion.

Dated: December ~ 2011Respectfully submitted,

J : c . G n ; r tAttorney for DefendantTodd Pierson

Medical vs. Pierson et a1 5 Ex p arte


6/29

6789

10111213141516

................... _._---_. _ _ . ._ - _

DECLARATION OF TODD PIERSON

1. I am the defendant herein. The following facts are within my personal knowledge,and if called to testify, I could and would testify competently hereto.

2. I offer this declaration in lieu of personal testimony pursuant to Section 2009 and2015.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Rule 5.118 of the California Rules ofCourt pursuant to the authority of Reifler v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. App. 3d 479 (1974).3. This declaration is in support of my ex parte application for an order to continuethe debtor examination in the alternative to shorten time to hear this motion.I WAS NEVER SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT4 . I am a licensed chiropractor. Myself and two other doctors, Defendant Raif

1 Iskander and David Johnson operated a chiropractic office. We Signed a lease18 agreement with plaintiff.19202122232425262728

5. Two years into the lease, Defendant Iskander abandoned the practice.Defendant Johnson abandoned the practice on or about March 2010. I continued tomaintain the practice until May 2010.

6 . On or about April 28, 2010, at 3 p.m. plaintiff purported served me personally withthe summons and complaint.

7. However, I was not in the office at the time of the alleged service. I am achiropractic doctor. I have appointments throughout the day. If and when I have abig break between the appointments, I would leave the office to do errands as I didon that day. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a copy of my appointment calendar forthat date. I had an appointment at 10:00 a.m., 4:15 p.m., 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.left my office at 11 a.m. and did not return until my 4:00 p.m. appointment.

8. Since my office manager had car trouble, she accompanied me to lunch and hadrequested that I give her and her daughter, Kaylee a ride to her daughter's doctor's

Medical vs. Pierson et al 6 Ex parte


7/29

6789

apPointment at 3 p.m. A copy of her declaration attesting to events of that day alongwith her daughter Kaylee Sullivan's doctor's visit prognosis is attached hereto asExhibit 4.

9. Additionally, it is uncertain where I was allegedly served since the proof of service10 does not have an address where the service was effectuated.11 10. Subsequent to the alleged service, Inever received any documents from plaintiff12131415161718 .

regarding the lawsuit against me either by mail or in person. Had Ireceived any noticeof the lawsuit. Iwould have appeared and present my defense. In fact, INEVER HADMY DAY IN COURT.11. Due to this egregious oversight, a default judgment has been entered against me.I should not be subjected to the intrusion of the debtor examination when in reality Inever had an opportunity to present my case.

19 I 12. Based on the foregoing, I would request the court to grant my motion to continuethe debtor examination. In the alternative, an order shortening time to hear this motion.20

2122 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the23 foregoing is true and correct and is executed at Santa Ana, California.2425262728

DATED: December _, 2011Todd Pierson, defendant

Medical vs. ?ierson et al 7 E x p arte


8/29

2011-12-0114:24

89

10

PIERSONC~ 9491134783 17146672388

1

11. Due to this egreglouB oversight. 8dBfault jUdgment has baan ente red aga in st me.I should not be sub jected to the Int rusion of the debtor exam ination when In reality Inever had an oppor tunity to present my case.

8. Since m y office manager h ad car tro uble , she a ccompanie d me to lun ch an d h adre que ste d th at I give h er a nd he r da ug hte r, K ayle e a rid e to her daughter's doctor 'sappointm ent at 3 p.m. A copy of her declarat ion attesting to ~ts o f tha t d ay a lon gwith her daugh te r Kay lee Sulliv an 's doc to (s v is it p rognos is is a tta ched hera to asex hib it 4 .

11 9. Additionally, it Is uncerta in whe re I was a lle gedly se rv ed s in ce the p roof o f s eN lc e12 does not have an address where the service was effectuated.1314151617181920

10. Subsequent to th e a lle ged serv ic e, I n ever re ce iv ed any documen ts from p la in tiffre gard ing th e lawsu it a ga in st m e e ithe r by mail o r in p erson . H ad I rece ived an y no ticeo f the lawsu it , Iwou ld have appea red and present m y defense. In fact. I NEVER HADMY DAY IN COURT.

21 12. Based on the foregoing, I w ould request the oourt to grant my moHon to oontlnue22 the debtor examination. In the allemative. an order shortening tim e to hear this motion.232425262728

I dec la re under penalt y O f p e~ ury u nde r the law s o f th e S ta te o f Califo rn ia that th efo rego ing is tru e and corre ct and Is execu ted a t San ta Ana . Cali fo rn ia .

DATED: December _j_,2011

M e d i c a l v a . r i e r a o n e ~ a 1 1 E > ! p,,,te

... _._._---

P1fZ


9/29

.

EXHIBIT 1


10/29

6789

1011

1 RICHARD C. GILBERT ISBN 85912LAW OFFICES OF GILBERT & MARLOWE2 950 West Seventeenth Street, Suites 0& ESanta Ana, California 92706-35733 . Telephone: 714-667-10384 Fax; 714-667-23885 Attorney for Defendant,Todd Pierson

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE COUNTY

MEDICAL DENTAL DEVELOPMENT,12 LLC131415

Plaintiff,vs.

CASE NO. 30-2010-00367447DEFENDANT, TODD PIERSON'S NOTICEOF MOTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDEJUDGMENT ENTERED JUNE 8, 2004.MEMORANDUM OF POINT ANDAUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LAURAHEINDELTODD PIERSON, an individual, DAVID16 JOHNSON, an individual, and RAIFISKANDER, an individual D A TE :

17 TIME:Defendants. DEPT:181920 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD:2122232425262728

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafteras counsel may be heard in Department _ of the Superior Court of California, County ofOrange, located at 700 Civic Center Dr. West, Santa Ana, CA 92706, Defendant ToddPierson will move this Court for an order to set aside the judgment entered against himand stay enforcement of said judgment.

Okp ak u v s. p el li ngr in iCa se No . 03CC09011 1 NOT1CE OF MOTION TO SE T ASIDEDE FAULT AND D EFAULT JUDGM ENT


11/29

89

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

--------------_. _ _ .-" 1234567

Th is m otio n w ill be ba se d on the groun ds tha t the d efau lt entered againstD efen dant w as ta ke n ag ainst him b y extrinsic frau d or m istake, an d. as w ell as the courth ad no sub je ct ma tte r ju ris dic tio n to ente r d efa ult a ga in st h im .

T his m otion is based on this N otice o f M otion , the attache d M em orandum of P ointsan d A uthoritie s, th e D ecla ration of T odd P ierson, as w ell as any and all e viden ce and oralarg um en t as m ay be presente d at the tim e of the h earin g o f this m otion .

BY:~- R icha rd C . G ilber tGilbert & MarloweA tto rn ey fo r De fe ndan t L au ra He in de l

DATED:

Ok pa ku v s. p elli ngr in iCa se No . 03CC09011 2 NOT ICE OF MOT ION TO S ET A SI DEDEF AULT AND D EFA ULT JUD GMENT


12/29

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

MEMORANDUM OF POIN T AND AUTHORIT IE S

I. S TA TEMENT O F FACT SP la in tiff is th e la nd lo rd o f th e le ss ee a nd De fe nd an t Tod d P ie rs on h ere in afte r

"D efe nd an t P ie rs on " a lo ng w ith th e o th er tw o n amed c o le ss ee s a nd c o d efe nd an ts , D av idJ oh ns on and Ra if Is ka nd er. 1

On o r a bo ut A pril 2 8, 2 01 0, P la in tiff file d th e s ummon s a nd c ompla in t.Pu rpo rted ly . p la in tif f se rved De fendan t P ie rson personally w ith the summons an dcomp la in t on that s ame date [emphas is added j. Howev er, a s s et fo rth in b oth D efe nd an tP ie rs on 's a nd h is o ffic e manage r, Sara Sulliv an 's d ec la ra tio ns , De fe nd an t P ie rs on wa s n ota ctu ally p re se nt a nd th at n o s erv ic e o f a ny k in d wa s a ctu ally e ffe ctu ate d.

O n o r a bo ut S ep temb er 1 3,2 01 0, P la in tiff file s a p ro of o f s erv ice a lle ge d th ep erso na l s erv ice o f D efe nd an t P ie rso n. A c op y o f th e e xh ib it is a tta ch ed h ere to a s Exhibit2 .

On o r a bo ut J uly 7 , 2 01 1, ju dgme nt o n th e comp la in t e nte re d a ga in st D efe nd an tP ie rso n. D efe nd an t P ie rs on d id n ot re ce ive a ny d oc umen ts o f a ny k in d re la tin g to th isc ase from P la in tiff b y m ail o r a ny o th er m eth od .

On Oc to be r 1 7, 2 01 1, P la in tiff file d a n a pp lic atio n fo r a d eb to r e xam in atio n a ga in sta ll t hree de fendan ts .

O n o r a bo ut N ov embe r 2 01 1, d efe nd an t P ie rs on re ce ive d a n otic e from th eCoun ty re ga rd in g a lie n o n h is p ro pe rty .

1 T he parties entered into a lease a greem ent for 10 years. T wo years into the lease,D efe nd an t Iska nd er a ba nd on ed th e le ase . O n a bo ut M arc h 2 01 0, D efe nd an t J oh nso na ba nd on ed th e le as e. D efe nd an t P ie rs on h ad n o co nta ct w ith e ith er d efe nd an ts u po n th eirdeparture.Okp aku v s. p ellingriniCase NO. 03CC09011 3 NOTICE OF MOTION TO SET ASIDEDEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT


13/29

12

3456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

Some time in la te O cto be r 2 01 1, D efe nd an t P ie rs on w as s erv ed w ith th e d eb to rexamina tion . H e fou nd o ut for the very first tim e th at th ere w as a law suit a nd ju dgme ntagains t h im .

O n D ecemb er 8 , 2 01 1, D efe nda nt P ie rso n filed a motion to se t a sid e the ju dgme nt[d ate a nd time is su ed a fte r th e w ritin g o f th is mo tio n},

II. ARGUMENTS

1 .

TH E COURT H AD NO J UR ISD IC TION TO ENTE R D EFA ULT J UDGMEN T AGAIN STDEFENDANT P IERSON

Purs ua nt to C alifo rn ia C iv il c od e o f P ro ce du re s ec tio n 4 73 (d ), w hic h s ta te s in p art"T he co urt m ay u po n motio n of e ithe r p arty a fte r n otice to the o th er p arty. se t a sid e a nyv oid ju dgmen t," s ee CCP 473 (d ). S pe cific ally . a ju dgmen t e nte re d w ith ou t ju ris dic tio n isvo id a nd vo id jud gmen t m ay b e c ha lle ng ed a t an y tim e. se e M ira t v. S tamp er M ed ica lC orp. (A pp . 2 D ist. 1 99 6) 5 1 C alR ptr. 2 d. 4 24, 44 C al.A pp .4 th 1 82 . La ck o f p erson alju ris dic tio n re nders a ju dgmen t o r d efa ult v oid . a nd th e defa ult may be d ire ctly c ha lle ngeda t a ny tim e , s ee S tra th va le H old in gs v . E .B .H . (A pp . 2 D is t. 2 00 5) 2 5 C al.R pr.3 d 3 72 ,1 26Ca l.App . 4 th1241 .

A s s et fo rth , d efe nd an t P ie rs on w as n ev er p ers on ally s erv ed w ith th e S ummonsa nd C omp la in t, n or w ith th e E ntry o f D efa ult a s a lle ge d by Pla in t if f. F i rs t . defendantP ie rso n w as n ot p re sen t at h is o ffice on A pril 2 8, 2 01 0 a t 3 p.m . w he n th e alleg ed serv icecould have taken place. A copy of the proof o f service is attached hereto as E xhib it 1 .D efe nd an t P ie rs on is a c hiro pra tic d oc to r a nd h as a pp oin tme nts th ro ug ho ut th e d ay .H ow ev er, in th e u su al c ou rs e o f b us in es s, d efe nd an t P ie rs on w ou ld ta ke lu nc h a nd ru nerrands when he has a block of free tim e such as he did on that date. A ttached hereto asOkpaku V5. pellingriniCa se No . 03CC09011 4 NOTICE OF MOTION TO SE T ASIDEDE FAULT AND DE FAULT JUDGMENT


14/29

8910111213141516

171819202122232425262728

1234567

Exhibit 2 is a copy of his appointment book. Defendant Pierson left his office after at 11a.m. after his morning appointment and did not return until approximately at 4 p.m. Atapproximately 3 p.m., the time that defendant Pierson was allegedly served, he was withhis office manager, Sara Sullivan and her daughter. A copy of Sara Sullivan's declarationattesting to the events of the day and her daughter, Kaylee Sullivan's doctor's visitprognosis is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. Defendant Pierson was not at his office nor ata fixed location to be purported served by plaintiff.

Furthermore, upon defendant Pierson's return to his office, no package nordocument was left as the office. As set forth in Sara Sullivan's declaration, lines 21-26,she never received any package nor witnessed any person coming to the office toeffectuate service upon defendant Pierson.

In addition to the improper service, the proof of service is defective becauseplaintiff failed to document the address where defendant Pierson was allegedly served. Itis unclear where defendant Pierson was served.

Moreover, subsequent to the aUegedservice. defendant Pierson never receivedany documents relating to the underlying lawsuit. Had he received any documents, hewould have participated in the proceeding.

Also, it is questionable that defendant Pierson was served on the day thesummons and complaint was filed with the court, April 28, 2010.

It is apparent that defendant Pierson was never served with the summons andcomplaint. As a matter of law, the court had no jurisdiction to enter default judgmentagainst defendant Pierson. Therefore, the motion to set aside should be granted.

2 .

THE COURT HAS THE INHERENT, EQUITABLE AUTHORITY TO SET ASIDEDEFAULT ON THE GROUND OF EXTRINSIC FRAUD MISTAKE OR MISTAKE FRAUD.

Okp aku v s. p ell inq rin iCa se No . 03CC09011 5 NOT ICE OF MOT I ON TO S E T A S I D EDE FAULT AND DE FAULT JUDGME NT


15/29

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

12

34

Apa rt from any s ta tu to ry a uth ority , a c ou rt h as in he re nt, e q uita ble p ower to s eta sid e a ju dgme nt o n th e g ro un ds o f "E xtrin sic F ra ud o r M ista ke ," {O liv eria v . G ra ce (1 94 2119 C 2d 570, 576); (S po rn v. H ome Depo t USA .. Inc . (2 00 5) 126 CA4th 1294 , 1300 .) Therea re th re e e ss en tia l re qu ireme nts to o bta in re lie f. T he p arty in d efa ult m ust sh ow : ame rito rio us d efe ns e; a s atis fa cto ry e xc us e fo r n ot p re se ntin g a d efe ns e to th e o rig in ala ctio n; a nd d ilig en ce in s ee kin g to s et a sid e th e d efa ult o nce it w as d is co ve re d,

56789

(Rappleyea v. Campbel l (1994) 8 C4th 975, 982.).In th is c as e, Defe nd an t P ie rs on will s how th at h e h as a merito rio us d efe ns e s in ce

h e m itig ate d th e lo ss. In re ga rd to th e s eco nd crite ria , D efe nd an t P ie rso n was n ev erse rv ed w ith e ith er th e c ompla in t, n or th e R eq ue st to E nte r D efa ult d esp ite th e a lle ge dp ro of o f se rv ice . D efe nd an t P ie rso n n ev er h ad a ch an ce to a nswe r th e la wsu it w ith in th etim e lim it. A s a th ird crite ria , D efe nd an t P ie rs on I is a la ym an , w ith ou t kn ow le dg e o f th e la w;D efe nd an t o nly le arn ed th at a J ud gmen t w as e nte re d a ga in st h e w as se rv ed w ith th ed eb to r e xam in atio n. Furth er, u po n re ce ip t o f th e lie n from th e c ou nty , d efe nd an t P ie rs onfu rth er c on firmed th at a ju dgmen t wa s e nte re d a ga in st h im .

F ra ud is n ot s pe cific ally mentio ne d a s a g ro un d fo r d is cre tio na ry re lie f u nd erCCP 4 73 {b ). H owev er, su ch re lie f ca n c erta in ly b e g ra nte d w he re fra ud is s hown ....o nth e th eo ry th at th e fra ud c au se d a m is ta ke b y a p arty s ee kin g re lie f. (R ic e v . R ic e (1 94 9)93 CA2d 646, 6 51). If the fraud has deceive d the court, rather than the D efendan t, thec ou rt h as in he re nt p ow er to s et a sid e th e d efa ult ju dgme nt. S in ce th e re lie f is n ot b as ed o nCCP47 3(b ), th e 6 -m on th lim ita tio n o f th at se ctio n d oe s n ot a pp ly . E ve n s o th e s ame tim elim ita tio n is re cogn ized as " Judic ia lly e stablis hed ru le o f p ro cedu re . " (D on v. C ruz (198 2)131 CA3d 695, 702.) A s s et fo rth in De fe nd an t P ie rs on 's d ec la ra tio n h e was not p re se ntwhen th e a lle ge d pe rsona l se rv ice was effectuated [emphas is added j.

Okp aku va . p el li nqr in iCaSH N o. 0 3C C09 011 6 NOTICE OF MOTION TO SE T ASIDEDE FAULT AND DEFAULT JODGME NT


16/29

a9

101112131415

161718192021222324

25262728

12

34567

Add itio na lly . th ere is s ig nific an t e vid en ce th at P la in tiff c omm itte d fra ud . F ra ud is abro ad co ncept that ''ten ds to encom pas a lm ost any set of circum stan ce s w hich deprive ap arty o f a fa ir a dv ersa ry h ea rin g. (E sta te o f S an de rs v . S utto n (1985) 4 0.C 3d 6 07 , 6 14 .)Fraud has been found w here the D efendant never had know ledge of the suit, being kept inig norance b y th e a cts of the P laintiff. A s set forth, D efenda nt P ie rson w as ne ve rp erso nally served w ith any docum ents of th is a ction . H ow ever, th e proof of servicealle ged that service w as in fact effe ctuate d o n A pril 28 , 201 0, the day the summon s an dc ompla in t w as file d w ith th e c ou rt.

A lso, a review of the p roo f o f service w ill sh ow that it is su sp icious becausep la in tiff fa ile d to d oc umen t th e a dd re ss whe re d efe nd an t P ie rs on was a lle ge dly s erve d. Itis u nc le ar w he re d efe nd an t P ie rso n co uld h ave b ee n p ers on ally s erv ed .

F urth er, p urs uant to Ca lifo rn ia CCP 473.5.(a) w hen service of a summons hasnot resulted in actual notice to a p arty in tim e to de fend the actio n and a default of defaultjudgm ent has been entered against him or her in the action, he or she m ay serve and filea N otice of M otion to set aside the D efau lt or D efault J udgm ent and or leave to defend thea ctio n. D efe nd an t P ie rs on tim ely file s th is m otio n u po n c on firm atio n th at ju dgment w asente re d aga in st h im .

3 .

THE COURT SHOULD SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT BASED ON SURPRISEPursuant to C CP 473(b), w hich states in part, "The court m ay, upon any term s as

may b e ju st, re lie ve a p arty o r h is o r h er le ga l re pre se nta tiv e from a ju dgment, d ismis sa l,ord er, or other pro ce eding take n ag ain st h im or her thro ugh his o r her m istake,inadve rtence , surpr ise," CCP 473(b ).

Okp aku v s. p el lin gri niC as e N o. 03C C09011 7 NOTICE OF MOTION TO SE T ASIDEDE FAOLT AND DE FAULT JUDGMENT

_ _ . _ _ _ - - _ ..-_ . . _ .. ---__--------.. _ -


17/29

123456789

10111213141516

171819202122232425262728

A s se t forth , D efen da nt P ie rso n w as su rp rise d w he n he rece ive d th e no tic e of th e

d eb to r ex am in atio n o n o r a bou t la te O cto ber 2 01 1. A t th at tim e, h e d isco ve red tha t the rew as a la wsu it an d a ju dgmen t en tere d a ga in st h im . P rio r to s uc h tim e, he n eve r re ce ive da ny n otice inc lu ding th e n otice of d efa ult a nd n ot be in g serve d w ith the summon s a ndc omp la in t. U po n le arn in g o f th e ju dgment, d efe nd an t P ie rs on tim e ly file s th e mo tio n to s eta sid e, P la in tiff file d re qu es t to e nte r d efa ult o n S ep temb er 1 3, 2 01 0. H owev er, d efa ultjud gm ent w as e nte red . T he cou rt e nte red jud gm en t o n th e c om pla int o n or ab ou t J uly 7 .2 01 1. In th e e ve nt o f th e u ntim e lin es s, th e c ou rt s ho uld c on sid er th e e q uita ble a rg umenta s s ta te d below .

4 .LEG ISLATIVE PO LIC Y FAVO RS J UDGM EN T BASED U PO N EQ UITY AN D U PO N

M ER IT O F TH E C ASEA motion fo r re lie f from a nd e ntry o f d efa ult is ad dress ed to th e so und d is cretion of

th e tria l c ou rt. a nd is e ss en tia lly a motio n in e q uity . (We it hz v . Yankosky (1 96 6) 6 3 Cal.2d849, 854.) S uc h d is cre tio n s ho uld b e e xe rc is ed w ith a v iew to s ee in g th at ju stic e is d on e,p artic ula rly when p rompt a pp lic atio n fo r re lie f is made . (S a nfo rd v . Sm ith (1970) 11Cal.App.3d 991,998.)

Here . d efe nd an t P ie rs on le arn ed o f th e ju dgment o n o r a bo ut la te O cto be r 2 01 1a fte r re ce iv in g n otic e o f th e d eb to r e xamin atio n. U po n le arn in g o f s aid jU dgment, h eswiftly h ire d c ou ns el to s ee k re lie f. D efe nd an t P ie rs on s ho uld h av e h is d ay in c ou rt./I/I/I/I

Okpaku VB. pellinqriniCa se No . 03CC09011 8 NOTICE OF MOTION TO SE T ASIDED EFAULT AND DE FAULT JUDGME NT


18/29

56789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

12 ! I L . .34

CONCLUSIONF or th e a bo ve -m en tio ne d re as on s, th is ju dgment s ho uld b e s et a sid e. a s d efa ult o f

this lawsuit against Defendant was clearly obtained by fraud as stated in Defendant'sdec la ra tio n and th e E xh ib its a tta ched here in

'


19/29

12 1.34567891011121314151617

1819

202122232425262728

DECLARATION OF TODD PIERSONIam the defendant herein. The following facts are within my personal knowledge,

and if called to testify, I could and would testify competently hereto.2 . I offer this declaration in lieu of personal testimony pursuant to Section2009 and 2015.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Rule 5.118 of the CaliforniaRules of Court pursuant to the authority of Reifler v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. App. 3d 479(1974).3. This declaration is in support of my ex parte application for an order tocontinue the debtor examination in the alternative to shorten time to hear this motion.I WAS NEVER SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

4. I am a licensed chiropractor. Myself and two other doctors, Defendant RaifIskander and David Johnson operated a chiropractic office. We signed a lease

5.agreement with plaintiff.

Two years into the lease, Defendant Iskander abandoned the practice.Defendant Johnson abandoned the practice on or about March 2010. I continued

6.to maintain the practice until May 2010.

On or about April 28, 2010, at 3 p.m. plaintiff purported served mepersonally with the summons and complaint.

However, I was not in the office at the time of the alleged service. I am achiropractic doctor. I have appointments throughout the day. If and when I havea big break between the appointments, I would leave the office to do errands as Idid on that day. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a copy of my appointmentcalendar for that date. I had an appointment at 10:00 a.m., 4:15 p.m., 4:30 p.m.and 5:00 p.m. I left my office at 11 a.m. and did not return until my 4:00 p.m.appointment.

7.

O kp ak u v s. p el li ng ri niC as e N o. 03C C09011 NOTICE Of' MOTION TOSE T A SI DE

DEFAULT AND DEFAU:"T JUDG!1ENT0


20/29

1 8. S ince m y office m anager had car trouble. she accom panied m e to lunch and had2

34S6789

r eques ted tha t Ig iv e h er a nd h er d au gh te r, K ay le e a rid e to h er d au gh te r's d oc to r'sappo in tmen t a t 3 p.m, A c op y o f h er d ec la ra tio n a tte stin g to e ve nts o f th at d ay a lo ngw ith h er d au gh te r K ay le e S ulliv an 's d oc to r's v is it p ro gn os is is a tta ch ed h ere to a sExhibit 4.9. Additio na lly , it is uncer ta in where I was a lle ge dly s erv ed s in ce th e p ro of o f s ervic ed oe s n ot h ave a n a dd re ss w he re th e s erv ic e w as e ffe ctu ate d.10. Sub se q ue nt to th e a lle ge d s erv ic e. I nev er re ce iv ed a ny d oc uments from p la in tiff

10 rega rdin g th e law suit aga inst m e either by m ail or in perso n. H ad Ir eceiv ed any no tic e11 of the lawsu it, I w ould have appeared and present my defense. In fact. I NEVER HAD12 MY DAY IN COURT.13 11. Due to th is e gre gio us o ve rs ig ht, a d efa ult ju dgmen t h as b ee n e nte re d a ga in st m e.14151617181920212223242S262728

I sh ould n ot be su bje cted to the in trus ion of the d ebtor e xam ination w he n in rea lity In eve r h ad a n o pp ortu nity to p re se nt m y c as e.12. B ased on the fo rego ing, I w ould req ue st th e court to gran t m y m otio n to con tin ueth e d eb to r e xamin atio n. In th e a lte rn ative , a n o rd er s ho rte nin g tim e to h ea r th is m otio n.

I decla re und er pen alty of p e~u ry u nde r the law s of the S tate of C aliforn ia that th efo re go in g is tru e a nd co rre ct a nd is e xe cu te d a t S an ta A na , C alifo rn ia .

D AT ED : D ecem ber _, 2011Todd P ie rson , defendant

Okp aku vs . p ell in gri niCa se No . 03C C09011 11 NOTICE OF MO':'ION TO SET ASIDEDE FAULT AND DE FAU~T JUDGMENT


21/29

2 01 H2 0 7 1 4;Z 4

61

89

10

PIfRSOHCHJROPRAr'" 9497134783 17146672388e8. S InC e m y office m anager had car trouble, she accom panied m e to lunch and had

req uested that I give her a nd her d au ghte r, Kaylee a ride to her daughter's doctorsappointment at 3 p.m. A copy of her declaration attesting to events of that day alongw ith h er daughter Kaylee Sullivan's do cto r's visit p rog no sis is a tta ch ed h ere to 8SE x hib it 4 .

11 9. Additionally, it is uncertain where I was allegedly served since the proof of service12 does not have an address vmere the s ervice w as effectuated.1314151611181920

10 . Subseq uent to the alleged service, I never received any documents from plaintiffreg ard ing th e la ws uit a ga lns t m e eith er by m all or In person, Had I received any noticeof the lawsuit. I would have appeared and present my defense. In fact. I NEVER HADMY DAY IN COURT.11. Due to this egregious oversight, 8dafaun judgment has been entered against me.I should no t be sub jected to the In trusion of the debtor e xamin atio n whe n in reality In eve r had an opportun ity to present my case.

21 12. Based on the foregoing, Iwould req uest the court to gra nt m y motion to continue22 the debtor exam ination. In the altematlve, an order Shorten ing t ime to h ea r th is motio n.232425262128

I declare under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of the State of Califom ia that theforegoing is true and correct and Is executed a t S an ta Ana . c allfomia .

DATED: December _ ]_ ,2011

K e d i c a l v a . ~ 1 e r a o n e t .1 7

PlIZ


22/29

EXHIBIT 2


23/29

. . . . . ._-_ .. .. ..; . ~"La Pal ...,.let2tt...... \IIIjo, ca tJ8It. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 . . . . , . . . . .

1E~ ............. ct.1111 a / J :!-MI1ILI'IlCAUS~:

CME IU II II ER :D ~ J I 5 P O h D E N T :H a t ~ ~ ~~~a::;3tP?'il~FOF8~OF8UMMON$

l~ pmofcf ~,.trIqII/tvd fweat : I J pmyeervt!ld.}t. N.1IM time of seMce I WIll at !NIt 18 ,eara 01 ago and nol. party to .. action.2. Is er ve d cap le s o f:a. d] s u m m o n s

b. r n , . C l Q J 1 I I l I a i \ \c. 0Allemative I iI puW R8 Io Iu liDn (ADR) paebgod. 0CIvI l Case Caver Shaet (seMtd itc ompleX c e o n l Y )e. 0C I O S W D I I1 I I8 W r tf. . Dther (.p:ify docrJmenI s ) :. . P a r t t . . M C I (specify".. ofPf II 'I . . awn on documenIs 1 I H W d J :#~~ 704/1"4' ~s~b.D Pwson (ollet lIIan!tle paftY In Ilem3a) S IIM d on behalf of an entity or as an a u t h o r i 2 : e d agent(mtnol a peftIonunder Item Sb onYdiom SIIbSlllutecl S8Niee 'MIl made) C . , . r : i / y n a m e ami t f I I t I I / I J n s h I p l D " ,. ptJItynamed in fIe".3e):

S. I.aMld 1b e party (drec:k ptOPer bolt).fgf by pMO .. 1 1tI V ic e. I pamonally dOIimad th e ~ Ilsttd it 1 itlm 2 10 the P I I t Y or ptlSOll aul ho rl zed toreceive .anice of process f or t ha p8Ity (1 ) on (d*):G>~ -Z l/'-,1a.p (2) at ( l ime): .3 j ? h J

b. 0."ubltitutld senfe. Q'l {de}: at (line): 11 8 f t" d o cu rl enb I li S Ie c Iin item 2 with 0(In 1h e presence of (nam.1Ild fN e orl8lftitwhlp fo pelSOII lndicl ted in R e m 3) :(1)0psusinns). person at . . .. . 18,..,. of age appanI rI Iy I n charge atltu'fica orusual.,wco cfbUllnollo f the p a m o n tD be 1eIWd.llntonnedlllm orher t :A1he a e n e t a l naIUI8 of the...,.,..(2)0home} a ca~1nt mentMt of U le h o u a c : h o I d (.t .... 1'''_gf age) at 1MW I e I i ft G l\oul8 C I I ' UIU8Iplica O f abOde of tho party. Inronned hin o r h er of !he general naIunt of th e papers .(3) 0phJsataclchuunImDwn) a petSOft at 1e.1t 18 YOart or. appIrently in c:haqe at t he U lU8 I maJlng

add,., of the p er so n t o be ItMId, other thin. United Sfatas ~1aI Servico post otIIc b O l e . I i'lbmedhim o r h er of t he g en em l n atu re of !be ,.,...(4 ) 0thefeafler mailed (b y tirlkfass, poa.go prepaid) copIn of ilia doCWnIInls 10 t he parson to be MMKt

at d ie place " "ere ~ copiu w e r e " " (Code CW . P R I C . . 5 4 1 1 . 2 \ ' ~ maillld Ihe cIOc:WnafIli on~): ftvm(afy): ar aclacleralionoflNlilingisatlachocl.(5) 0dicit a c I I dml t \ on ofdillpftCO staling a c : I I o n s taken f irs t to at t empt ".rtonal M N I c a .

PROOF Of SEIMC O F 6 U ll M ON S ::....ofc:;,;lP_ t~11.1C1=-t=. ,~1

._----- . _ - . "--,, .

P0S-010


24/29

_.-... _ _ ... _ _ _-_.- .._ .._--_ .._. ._._------ .. -' . e

EXHIBIT 3


25/29

2 0 11 -1 2 -0 5 1 1 :3 3 PIERSONtHIROPW 9497134713:#

t7M667Z388

Appointments

1II

,i .11.~,Kdey

P313


26/29

. .

EXHIBIT 4-----_ ...... _ _ ...


27/29

0 .

67891011121314

DECLARATION OF SARA SULLIVAN

1. I, Sara Sullivan am the declarant herein. The follow ing facts are w ith in m ype rsonal know ledge , and if calle d to te stify , I c ou ld a nd would te stify c ompete ntlyhereto.2 . I o ffe r th is d ecla ra tio n in lie u o f p ers on al te stim on y p urs ua nt to S ec tio n 2 00 9 a nd2 01 5.5 o f th e Califo rn ia C od e o f C iv il P ro ce du re , R ule 5 .1 18 o f th e Califo rn ia R ule s o fC ou rt p urs ua nt to th e a uth ority o f R eifle r v . S up erio r C ou rt, 3 9 Cal. A pp . 3 d 4 79 (1 97 4).3. I am th e office m an age r for do ctor T od d P ie rson from O ctobe r 20 09 a nd

15 con tinu ing un til today's da te .161718192021222324252627

28

4. O n April 28 , 2010, I had car troub le so I asked dr. P ierson if he can give m e andm y daughter a ride to her doctor's appointm ent at 3 p.m . H e agreed so I accom paniedhim to lunch and from there w e w ent to the doctor.5 . Prior to leaving the office, no person showed up to serve any documents to dr.Pierson.7 . U pon our return to the office at approxim ate ly 4:00 p.rn., we did not rece ive anydocum ents or pa cka ge re garding the law suit. IN fa ct, no p ackage of a ny kin d w as everrece ived from p la in tiff.

I d ecla re und er p enalty of perju ry u nder th e law s of the S ta te of C aliforn ia tha t thefo re go in g is tru e a nd c orre ct a nd is e xe cu te d a t S an ta A na , C alifo rn ia .

DATED: December __ ,2011Sara Su llivan , Dec la ran t

Medical vs. Pierson at al 8 E x p arte


28/29

2011-12-07 14;Z ' ,t ~

222324252621 I declare under penalty of perjury under the law s of the S tate of C alifornia that the

6789

101112131415161718192021

PIDISON~ 9497134783 17146672388 DeCLARAT ION OF SARA SULLIVAN

1. I, Sara Sullivan am the declarant he rein. T he follo wing facts are w ithin m ypersonal knowledge. and If c alle d to tes ti fy , , could and would test ify competentlyhe.. to .2. I offer this declaration in lieu of personal testimony pursuant to S ectio n 2009 and2015.5 of th e Csllfomia Code o f C iv il Procedure, Rule 5.118 of the California Rule s o fk2YLPursuant to th e authority of R einer v. S uperiQ r C ourt. 39 C al. A pp . 3d 4 79 (1974).3. I am the office manager fo r doctor Todd P ie rs on from Octo be r 2009 andcon tinuing unt il teday's date .4. On A p r i l 28. 2010, I had car trouble so I ask ed dr. Pierson If he can give me andmy daughter 8ride to her doctor 's appointment at 3 p.m. He agreed so I accompaniedhim to lunch and from tharR we want to th e doctor.5. Prior to leaving the office, no person show ed up to s erv e any doc umen ts to dr .Pierson.7. Upon our retum to the o fflc e a t a pp ro ximate ly 4 :0 0 p .m ., w e did not receive an ydocuments o r package rega rd ing the lawsuit. IN fact, no package of any kind was everreceived frgm plainti ff .

28 foregoing I s tru e and co rre ct and is e xecu ted at Santa Ana, CQlifomla.

DATED : December L ,2011

M e d i c a l v s . r i e E B o n e t a l 8

PZ/2


29/29

, ~ KA ISER PERMANENTE MISS ION V IEJO MEDICAL OFFICES USUL lIVAN ,KYLEE23761 MAQUINA AVENUE MRN: 000019096577M ISSION V IE JO. CA 92690-2716 DOB: 313112005,Sex: FAMB ENC ROI L eg al R eco rd Ene. Date:o..l2811 0Office VIsit Ky lt e Su ll tv an (MRH D0001 iOK571 )Visit and Patient InformationP9tiel1t Information

Patie nt N am eSullvan. Ky lee (OOO019096Sn )

Se xFemale

OOB

Patient DemographicsAddress27012 V IA GRANDEM ISSIO N VIEJ O C A 92691

Phone

Contact InformationDate412812010

Provider LocationM ELAN IE M Y LA N C HAN MO M IS SION V IEJ O MEDICALOFFICES UMVJU

Encounter #NIiiEiIiL.

Other ApJli)lntmenls TodayOate & Time4 /28120103:40 PM

ProviderM vj Lab W alk In

Department CenterMVJU

Visit InformationProvider Department

4 I2B 120 10 3:0 0 P M MELA NIE M V L AN P edo cm \lj PerlCHANMDDep t P ho ne,I "0

Reason for CallNisitW Ell CHIlO E XA M V ISIT 5 years old

Call Documentation

Chin, Melanie My Lan (M.D .) 4128/10 08 :28 PM A dden de dQuick. Note;Results discussed with mom on p hone. Will hold off antibiotic for nowuntil urine culture returns.

C han, M elan ia M y Lan (M .D .) 4128f10 08:00 P M S ignedKa ise r P&rmanente Page 1

medical-dental dev. llc v pierson, et al. - medical dental ex parte application by pierson to...

Documents