California Court of Appeal

Trial court judgment denying defendant's motion to vacate the entry of default and default judgment against it is reversed where, although substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the service of summons was properly endorsed and stated that defendant was being sued under the fictitious name of Doe 4, the proof of service of the summons did not contain the recitals required by Code of Civ. Pro. sec. 474 as it neither stated the fictitious name under which such defendant was served, nor did it recite the fact that notice of identity was given by endorsement upon the document served.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/28/2009
• Published 05/28/2009

Judges

• WILLHITE, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Law Offices of Steven L. Sugars and Steven L. Sugars, Pasadena, for Defendant and Appellant., Mancini & Associates, Marcus A. Mancini, Adam J. Reisner, Sherman Oaks;  Benedon & Serlin, Shona L. Armstrong and Douglas G. Benedon, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Respondent.