Thursday, January 22, 2026
Page 4
Default Judgment Snatched From Law Firm
C.A. Says Summons, Complaint Ineffectively Served
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Seven of this district’s Court of Appeal has overturned a $123,056 judgment in favor of the law firm of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, holding that service of the summons and complaint by its agent on a receptionist in the office of the corporate defendant’s president did not suffice.
The unpublished opinion, filed Tuesday, reverses an order by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki denying a motion by defendant Great Host International, under Code of Civil Procedure §473(d), to vacate a default and a default judgment.
Acting Presiding Justice Gail Ruderman Feuer declared:
“Because the judgment was void on its face, the trial court did not have fundamental jurisdiction over Great Host, and the court erred in denying the motion to vacate the default and default judgment.”
The law firm brought the lawsuit to collect fees.
Substitute Service
Zachary Thibodeaux, a litigation support service employee, sought to serve Great Host’s president and agent for service of process, Ali Zeini, at the corporation’s headquarters in Houston. He left the papers with receptionist Sam Palacios.
That, Feuer said, does not meet the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure §415.20, which says that a summons and complaint may be served at an office by entrusting them to “the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.”
The jurist noted that “the proof of service does not include any facts establishing that Palacios was ‘apparently in charge of the office,’ ” nor does it indicate that Palacios was Zeini’s “personal secretary,” which would have been permissible under a Judicial Council commentary to §415.20.
She pointed out that Thibodeaux did not “purport to have served another corporate officer qualified to accept service,” as permitted by §416.10(b).”
Secondary Flaw
A further defect, she said, was that in mailing a copy of the documents to Great Host, the envelope was not “addressed or directed to Zeini or to any other qualified officer or agent.”
Feuer recited:
“There is no time limit to bring a motion for relief from a judgment under section 473, subdivision (d), on the ground the judgment is void on its face for lack of proper service.”
The case is Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith v. Great Host International, B340432.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company