Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Manuel Noriega sued Hadley Towing Equipment, Inc., Mark Hassan, and another defendant in April 2023, alleging disability discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and numerous wage-related violations. Noriega alleged that Hassan owned the towing business where he worked as a tow truck operator and that he was not paid overtime, among other claims. His statement of damages sought $4,275,000. A registered process server used substitute service for the summons and complaint at 11819 Hadley Street in Whittier on June 1, 2023, leaving the papers with the individual in charge and mailing a copy to the same address. The statement of damages was later served by substituted service at that address and separately at a Tujunga address.
After Hassan did not answer, Noriega sought a default judgment. The trial court entered judgment against Hassan for $425,000 on March 11, 2024, stating that it considered Noriega's testimony, written declaration, and other evidence. Hassan moved to vacate the default and judgment in December 2024. He declared that he had never lived or worked at the Tujunga address, had not received timely notice, did not own Hadley Towing Equipment, Inc., and had not employed Noriega. Noriega responded with municipal and business records identifying Hassan as an owner or president of Hadley Tow and connecting him to the Hadley Street address. Hassan later stated that he was affiliated with FMG, Inc., doing business as Hadley Tow. The trial court denied relief, emphasizing that Hassan had not addressed the earlier Whittier service and finding his denial of notice not credible.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reviewed the statutory and equitable rulings for abuse of discretion and affirmed. It explained that substitute service may be completed at a defendant's usual place of business by leaving the papers with an apparently responsible adult and then mailing copies to that location. The evidence supported service on Hassan at Hadley Street because the opposition documents connected that address to the business he owned, regardless of its precise legal name. Although Hassan filed two declarations, he did not dispute that his business was located there. The court therefore found no error in the determination that he was served with the summons and complaint.
The court also rejected Hassan's argument that defective service of the statement of damages at the Tujunga address required reversal. Assuming without deciding that service of that statement was a prerequisite to default, the court held that his argument ignored the separate service at Hadley Street. It expressly declined to decide whether Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11 required the statement in this case. On statutory relief under section 473.5, the trial court's adverse credibility finding defeated Hassan's claim because it rejected the only evidence he offered that he lacked actual notice in time to defend.
Equitable relief likewise failed. Hassan's argument rested on the incorrect premise that he was never served, disregarded evidence the trial court found credible, and did not address diligence in seeking relief after learning of the action. The court further held that the distinction between Hadley Towing Equipment, Inc. and Hadley Tow did not undermine individual service when Hassan did not dispute doing business at the service address. Finally, arguments first presented at oral argument concerning the prove-up documents were forfeited; the record nevertheless showed that the statement of damages, its proof of service, and the Judicial Council damages form were included in the packet filed before judgment. The order was affirmed, and Noriega was awarded costs on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A challenge to substitute service cannot succeed by addressing only one service location while leaving service at the defendant's usual business address undisputed.
- The precise name of a business entity does not invalidate individual service when the evidence establishes that the defendant conducted business at the address where service occurred.
- A trial court's rejection of a defendant's credibility can defeat a section 473.5 claim based on an asserted lack of actual notice.
- Equitable relief from a default judgment requires more than allegations of nonservice and must be supported by the required showing, including diligence after discovering the judgment or action.
- Arguments raised for the first time at oral argument may be forfeited, and an unsupported assertion that documents must appear separately on the docket need not be considered further.
Why It Matters
The decision applies established default-judgment principles to a record containing multiple business names and multiple service addresses. Its analysis focuses on the defendant's connection to the place of service rather than accepting entity-name distinctions as a substitute for evidence. It also illustrates the importance of the trial court's credibility determinations when appellate review is for abuse of discretion.
The opinion leaves open whether section 425.11 required Noriega to serve a statement of damages, resolving that issue only on the assumption that service was necessary. It also reinforces that parties should preserve challenges to default prove-up materials before oral argument and support procedural requirements with legal authority.