Burunsuzyan v. Roger CA2/7, B313917

Background

Plaintiff Maro Burunsuzyan sued defendant Dimitri (aka Rich The Kid) for invasion of privacy, false light, IIED, and negligence after he posted her personal cell number on social media, causing hundreds of calls/texts that disrupted her life and practice.
Burunsuzyan filed suit and served a statement of damages (listing $100,000 special, $500,000 general). Roger was not answered; clerk entered default and the court entered default judgment for $601,235.15.
Roger later moved to set aside the default judgment, asserting lack of actual notice because he was allegedly in New York at the time of service and that his father discarded the papers. He promptly moved after discovering the judgment.
The process server produced a contemporaneous video and declared he announced himself and dropped envelopes at Roger’s feet; the video shows a man (appearing to be Roger) walking away as envelopes are dropped.
Trial court credited the process server, found Roger deliberately avoided service, and denied relief; the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Whether equitable relief should be granted to set aside the default judgment	Burunsuzyan: service occurred; Roger avoided service; no excusable mistake	Roger: lacked actual notice (was in NY), acted promptly when he discovered default	Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion; credited server/video showing deliberate avoidance, so equitable relief unavailable.
2) Whether default judgment is void on its face for inadequate statement of damages under §425.11	Burunsuzyan: she served a statement showing special and general damages; judgment within amounts demanded	Roger: served statement was insufficient (not CIV-050 detail; served only by mail later), so lack of proper notice renders judgment void	Judgment not void on its face — personal service statement disclosed general and special damages; failure to use CIV-050 form/details not fatal to facial validity; jurisdictional challenge timely but fails on merits.
3) Whether damages lack substantial evidentiary support because plaintiff’s prove-up declaration was not sworn under penalty of perjury	Burunsuzyan: defaulting defendant cannot complain on prove-up after failing to appeal earlier	Roger: prove-up declaration inadmissible hearsay (not under penalty of perjury), so damages unsupported	Court: declaration was inadmissible but Roger forfeited the challenge by not appealing the default judgment or raising the issue below; cannot raise for first time on appeal from denial of vacatur.

Key Cases Cited

Rappleyea v. Campbell, 8 Cal.4th 975 (equitable relief from default; extrinsic mistake standards)
Greenup v. Rodman, 42 Cal.3d 822 (default judgment cannot exceed amount demanded; need notice of general and special damages)
Schwab v. Rondel Homes, Inc., 53 Cal.3d 428 (statement of both special and general damages required to evaluate claims)
Behm v. Clear View Technologies, 241 Cal.App.4th 1 (defer to trial court credibility findings in vacatur decisions)
Pittman v. Beck Park Apartments Ltd., 20 Cal.App.5th 1009 (judgment void on its face may be attacked at any time)