Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
20111004 Opposition

20111004 Opposition

Ratings: (0)|Views: 18 |Likes:
Published by Chris Harshman

More info:

Published by: Chris Harshman on Oct 19, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/17/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
R.
Christopher Harshman(248214)charshman@lovi ziplaw.
com
2 Lovitz IP Law PC
9701
Wilshire
Blvd.
Ste
10003 Beverly Hills, CA 90212Telephone:(310) 425-35294 Facsimile: (310) 773-9027
I
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff Marc Danziker
I
6
7
I
I
I
9
10
11
12
SUPERIORCOURT
OF
THE
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
FOR
THE
cb
UNTY
OF
LOS
ANGELES-
WEST DISTRICT
13
1415
16
1i
181920
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Marc Danziger, an individual,Plaintiff,vs.CHARMED.COM, INC., a Delaware corporationsuccessor in interest to InfoCharnf
s,
Inc., a Californiacorporation, and
DOES
1-10,
inclusive,
. I
Defendants.
I
To
all
parties
and
their
~
ttomeys
of
record:
Case
no
.SC111370PLAINTIFF'S
OPPOSITION
TO
DEFENDANT'S RENEWED
MOTION
TO
SET ASIDE
DEFAULT
Filed Concurrently Herewith:
DECLARATION
OF
R.
CHRISTOPHER
HARSHMAN;
DECLARATION
OFJORGE
MURILLO;
EVIDENTIARY
OBJECTIONS
TO
DECLARATIONS
OF
ALEX LIGH1MANAND
ANDRE
TAYLOR; [PROPOSED]
ORDER
THEREON
Assigned to:Complaint Filed:Default Entered:Hearing:Judge Allan
J.
Goodman
February
8,
2011
May 25,2011October 19,
2011
8:30a
.
m.
Dept.
WEP
Please take
notice
that :Plaintiff Marc Danziger, by and through his counsel
of
record, herebyopposes the Renewed Motion to Set Aside Default brought by
Defendant
Charmed.coin, Inc.,
as
set forthherein.
 
 
I
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Table of Contents
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................... I
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................ II
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 2
I.
D
EFENDANT
F
 AILED TO
EEP
C
URRENT ITS
ECORDS WITH THE
S
ECRETARIES OF
S
 TATE AND
O
 THERWISE
I
NEXCUSABLY 
N
EGLECTED ITS
 A
FFAIRS
................................................................................ 2
II.
P
LAINTIFF
EASONABLY 
ELIED ON
 T
HOSE
ECORDS
;
 
D
EFENDANT
B
EARS THE
ESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS
ELIANCE AND
C
 ANNOT
B
ENEFIT FROM ITS
D
ERELICTION
.................................................... 5
III.
S
ERVICE
 W 
 AS
E
FFECTIVE
U
NDER 
§
 
415.20 .................................................................................................. 6
 A.
Plaintiff’s Substitute Service Complied with Statutory Requirements ................................................................. 7 
B.
Defendant Relies on Inapplicable Authority ...................................................................................................... 7 
C.
Substitute Service on a Guard in a Gated Community is Valid ........................................................................
D.
Defendant’s Inadequate Evidence and Other Spurious Arguments .................................................................. 10
E.
 Any Defect in Service was Waived ................................................................................................................. 11
IV.
ELIEF
U
NDER 
§
 
473( 
B
 )
IS
U
NAVAILABLE AS
 T
HERE
 W 
 AS
N
O
M
ISTAKE
,
 
I
NADVERTENCE
,
 
S
URPRISE
,
 OR 
E
XCUSABLE
N
EGLECT
.............................................................................................................................. 11
 V.
D
EFENDANT HAS
N
OT
E
STABLISHED
E
LIGIBILITY FOR 
CCP
 
§
 
473.5
 
ELIEF
...................................... 13
 VI.
D
EFENDANT
H
 AS
N
OT
E
STABLISHED
 A
NY 
M
ERITORIOUS
D
EFENSE
................................................... 14
PREJUDICE ...................................................................................................................................... 15
SANCTIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 15
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 15
 
 
 
II
 
Opposition to Renewed Motion to Set Aside Default
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Table of Authorities
 
CASES
 American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara 
, H036216, 2011 WL 4357302 (Cal. Ct. App. Sixth Dist., Sept. 20,2011) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Dill v. Berquist Constr. Co
., 24 Cal. App. 4th 1426 (1994) ........................................................................................... 7
Elms v. Elms 
, 72 Cal. App. 2d 508 (Cal. Ct. App. 1946) ..................................................................................... 5, 13
Espindola v. Nunez 
, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1389 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) .............................................................................. 7
FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima 
, 231 Cal. App. 3d 367 (3d Dist. 1991) ............................................................ 15
Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp
., 22 Cal.4th 1127 (2000) .................................................................................................... 11
Lacey v. Bertone 
, 33 Cal.2d 649 (1949) .......................................................................................................................... 11
Lorenz v. Commercial Acceptance Insurance Co.
, 40 Cal.App.4th 981 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) ...................................... 12
Ludka v. Memory Magnetics Int'l,
25 Cal. App. 3d 316 (Ct. App. 1972) ..................................................................... 9
 Northridge Fin. Corp. v. Hamblin 
, 48 Cal. App. 3d 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) .......................................................... 14
Pasadena Medi-Ctr. Associates v. Superior Court 
, 9 Cal. 3d 773 (1973) ...................................................................... 5, 6
Pearson v. Cont'l Airlines 
, 11 Cal. App. 3d 613 (Ct. App. 1970) ................................................................................. 3
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pietak
, 90 Cal. App. 4th 600 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) .................................................. 12
Summers v. McClanahan 
, 140 Cal. App. 4th 403 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) ....................................................................... 5
Trackman v. Kenney 
, 187 Cal. App. 4th 175 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) .............................................................................. 7
Verizon California Inc. v. OnlineNIC, Inc 
., 647 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .................................................. 6
Yarbrough v. Yarbrough 
, 144 Cal. App. 2d 610 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956) ........................................................................ 12
STATUTES
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1010 .......................................................................................................................................... 1Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20 .............................................................................................................................. 7, 8, 9Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.21 ....................................................................................................................................... 8Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 417.10 ....................................................................................................................................... 7Cal. Corp. Code § 2117 .................................................................................................................................................. 2
 TREATISES
2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1996) Jurisdiction, § 190, p. 756 ...................................................................... 118 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Attack on Judgment in Trial Court, § 155, p. 749 ............................. 12
RULES
California Rules of Court 1.21 ...................................................................................................................................... 1California Rules of Court 3.1110 .................................................................................................................................. 1California Rules of Court 3.1113 .............................................................................................................................. 1, 8Los Angeles Superior Court L.R. 3.A ........................................................................................................................ 10

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->