Bindoy
Bindoy v. McCrary CA1/1
Opinion
Opinion
BACKGROUND
McCrary and Leanne Bindoy had a son in 2019. McCrary acknowledged his paternity and his duty to support his son. Bindoy filed a “parentage action” against him,2 and each retained counsel. In January 2022, DCSS prepared a supplemental complaint in the parentage action to require McCrary to pay child support. (§ 17400.) Shortly before DCSS filed the complaint, its employee Erica Orozco called McCrary to discuss child support. In May 2022, DCSS filed a proof of service of its complaint alleging— inaccurately, the parties now agree—personal service on McCrary on May 21. In June 2022, as DCSS prepared to seek a default judgment, a DCSS employee called McCrary to discuss child support. A week later, DCSS secured a default judgment requiring McCrary to pay support, effective retroactively to February 2022. In August 2022, DCSS filed a proof alleging personal service of the judgment on McCrary. In November 2022, McCrary learned that DCSS had a lien on his recovery for personal injuries from an accident and had caused his driver’s license to be suspended. When he called DCSS to inquire, an employee informed him of the default judgment, and he asked the employee “[t]o tell [him]…