Solorzano

Solorzano v. Uriostegui CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 29, 2024C098461California1,475 words

Opinion

Opinion

Krause, J.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURE

On March 14, 2022, plaintiff Edgar Solorzano (Solorzano) filed a complaint against defendants Uriostegui and Innovative Builders, Inc. (Innovative) alleging various

Undesignated section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1 causes of action arising from his employment with Innovative, including failure to pay wages. Uriostegui was personally served with a copy of the summons and complaint on April 14, 2022. After reviewing the summons served upon him, Uriostegui concluded that it was defective because it had a stamped court seal, instead of the embossed seal that he believed was required under California law. Based on his belief that the summons was invalid, Uriostegui did not respond to the complaint. On July 7, 2022, Solorzano filed a request for entry of default, and the clerk of the trial court entered Uriostegui’s default on that date. Over six months later, on January 9, 2023, the trial court held a default prove-up hearing. On January 11, 2023, the court issued a judgment in favor of Solorzano in the amount of $108,139.95. On February 10, 2023, Uriostegui filed a motion to set aside the entry of default and default…

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.