American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara
199 Cal. App. 4th 383
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- AmEx Centurion Bank sued Robert V. Zara for damages.
- Zara moved to quash service arguing he was not served; trial court denied, finding actual notice and granted 10 days to answer.
- Zara did not answer; trial court entered default and later a default judgment for $61,988.85.
- On appeal, Zara contends the denial of the motion to quash was erroneous; the court agrees and reverses with directions.
- The court analyzes service of process statutes, burden of proof on the plaintiff, and whether actual notice can cure defective service.
- The court concludes the proof of service was false, defeating personal jurisdiction; the judgment is void and must be vacated; costs awarded to Zara on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service complied with statutory requirements to confer jurisdiction | Plaintiff argued proof showed personal service and liberal construction. | Zara argued the proof was false and did not show proper personal service. | Service improper; jurisdiction not conferred; judgment void. |
| Whether actual notice can validate defective service | Plaintiff urged liberal construction to uphold jurisdiction with actual notice. | Zara argued actual notice cannot substitute for proper service. | Actual notice alone insufficient; substantial compliance required and not shown. |
| Effect of false proof of service on jurisdiction | Plaintiff relied on process server’s declaration; argued lack of good faith impact. | False proof indicates intentional fraud to obtain jurisdiction. | Fundamental jurisdiction obtained through fraud; judgment void; must quash. |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers v. McClanahan, 140 Cal.App.4th 403 (Cal. App. 2006) (actual notice not substitute for proper service; liberal rule does not permit.)
- Gilbert v. Carol, 179 Cal.App.4th 852 (Cal. App. 2009) (doctrine of substantial compliance requires partial or colorable compliance.)
- Gorham v. County of San Diego, 186 Cal.App.4th 1215 (Cal. App. 2010) (false proof of service defeats jurisdiction; intentional fraud.)
- Pasadena Medi-Center Assocs. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.3d 773 (Cal. 1973) (liberal construction to effect service if actual notice received; not alone.)
- Dill v. Berquist Construction Co., 24 Cal.App.4th 1426 (Cal. App. 1994) (proper service required for personal jurisdiction; void default if not served.)
- Davis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 217 Cal.App.3d 1229 (Cal. App. 1989) (substantial compliance doctrine requires good faith attempts.)