Siemons v. Chase Bank
Filed 9/28/10 Siemons v. Chase Bank CA1/1
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
ROBERT
MICHAEL SIEMONS,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHASE BANK USA,
N.A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A126826
(Alameda
County
Super. Ct.
No. VG04172155)
Respondent
Robert Siemons filed suit against a predecessor in interest of appellant Chase
Bank USA, N.A. (Chase), based on the predecessor's conduct in connection with a
theft of Siemons's identity. When the
predecessor did not file a timely response to the complaint, Siemons took its
default. Three years later, Chase moved
to set aside the default under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5
(hereafter section 473.5), contending it had only recently learned of Siemons's
lawsuit. In response, Siemons provided
evidence his attorney had discussed the lawsuit with a paralegal at Chase two
years earlier. The trial court denied the motion to vacate,
finding proper service of process had been made and crediting the attorney's
evidence regarding his contacts with Chase.
Finding no evidence Chase or its predecessor had actual knowledge of the
lawsuit in time to prevent entry of the default, we reverse and remand with
instructions to vacate the default and permit Chase to defend the action on the
merits.
BACKGROUND
On
August 25, 2004, Siemons
filed a complaint against â€
| Description | Respondent Robert Siemons filed suit against a predecessor in interest of appellant Chase Bank USA, N.A. (Chase), based on the predecessor's conduct in connection with a theft of Siemons's identity. When the predecessor did not file a timely response to the complaint, Siemons took its default. Three years later, Chase moved to set aside the default under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 (hereafter section 473.5), contending it had only recently learned of Siemons's lawsuit. In response, Siemons provided evidence his attorney had discussed the lawsuit with a paralegal at Chase two years earlier. The trial court denied the motion to vacate, finding proper service of process had been made and crediting the attorney's evidence regarding his contacts with Chase. Finding no evidence Chase or its predecessor had actual knowledge of the lawsuit in time to prevent entry of the default, we reverse and remand with instructions to vacate the default and permit Chase to defend the action on the merits. |
| Rating |
