City of Sacramento v. Altstatt CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 18, 2022C092141California2,276 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mauro, J.

BACKGROUND

Defendant owned residential property in Sacramento, which he maintained in a manner that created a severe public nuisance. In 2014, the City began enforcement efforts to require defendant to remedy multiple code violations, but defendant did not take the necessary actions. Instead, defendant insisted that the City cease its code enforcement activities. After further unproductive enforcement efforts, the City filed a complaint in 2015 based on public nuisance, seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief. Defendant was personally served. Defendant filed numerous requests, demands, objections, motions, and notices in response to the complaint. Twice, defendant attempted to remove the action to federal court, and in each instance the case was remanded to the state trial court. Despite defendant’s many filings, he never answered the City’s complaint. On February 1, 2018, defendant’s default was entered. Twenty months later, on October 29, 2019, defendant filed a motion to set aside the default. He asserted (1) the default was void because the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, (2) the City failed to file a timely request for default, (3) the City failed to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.