Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC v. Munoz ( 2021 )

l Fincd 4 [ #82 2 9004 ap CLERK, v3 D STRICT 6 4 . 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC, Case No.: 3:21-cv-00172-BEN-AGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED | 13 || V- MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT 14 JUDGMENT ALEJANDRO C, MUNOZ, an individual; 15 || GISELA [VETTE ZAMINGIR, an [ECF No. 8] 16 individual; MCT GROUP INC., a California Corporation; COUNTY OF 17 || SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF 18 ||} CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, a 19 || governmental entity; VISTA VERDE MASTER ASSOCIATION, a California 20 Nonprofit Corporation; SYNCHRONY 21 || BANK fka GE MONEY BANK, a 22 || financial entity; and the UNITED 93 || STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. . 25 This matter and a related case involve quieting title to the property and fixtures 26 |l1ocated at 1673 Brezar Street, Chula Vista, California, 91913 (the “Subject Property”). 27 || See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1; see also Vista Verde Master Association v. Broker 28 Solutions, Inc. et al., S.D. Cal. Case No. 3:20-cv-02134-BEN-KSC. 1 1. BACKGROUND 2 Following a foreclosure due to unpaid housing association assessments, multiple 3 || liens appeared to encumber the Subject Property. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1,2. On 4 || April 15, 2019, Plaintiff Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC (“Lakeview”), one of those 5 ||lienholders, filed this action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of 6 Diego, to protect its interest in the Subject Property. Jd. After the Superior Court 7 entered default judgment but prior to terminating the case, Defendant the United States of 8 || America filed a notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1442, 1444, and 1446. 9 The United States has now filed a Motion to Vacate the Superior Court’s Default 10 Judgment (the “Motion”), Mot., ECF No. 8. The time for responsive pleadings has 11 lapsed, and the Motion is unopposed. 12 LEGAL STANDARD 13 The court may set aside a final default judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal 14 Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 60(b)”). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). Rule 60(b) provides 15 “[o}]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative 16 || from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” if, inter alia, the underlying judgment is 17 |; void. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). 18 ANALYSIS 19 As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the Superior Court’s default judgment 20 || does not divest this Court of jurisdiction over this matter. See Butner v. Neustadter, 324 21 || F.2d 783, 785 (Oth Cir. 1963). In Butner, the Ninth Circuit noted “[t]he federal court 22 ||takes the case as it finds it on removal and treats everything that occurred in the state 23 ||court as if it had taken place in federal court.” Jd. Thus, a motion to vacate a default 24 || judgment entered by the state court is analyzed pursuant to Rule 60(b), just as if the 25 district court had entered the default judgment itself. /d. at 785-86; see also Haight v. 26 || U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, Case No. 17-cv-00014-CL, 2017 WL 2416361, at *2 (D. Or. 27 || Apr. 28, 2017) (setting aside a state court default judgment against the United States and 28 || citing Butner along with other cases). 1 Here, the United States argues the Superior Court’s default judgment is void 2 because Lakeview failed to properly serve the United States. Mot., ECF No. 8, 4 (citing 3 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 4G) (“Rule 4()”). Rule 4(i) requires a party serving the United States to 4 a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the Attorney 5 ||General of the United States in Washington, D.C. and deliver a copy to “the United 6 || States attorney for the district where the action is brought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(A). In 7 Motion, the United States argues Lakeview never properly served the United States 8 |} Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California as required by Rule 4(i). Mot., 9 || ECF No. 8,3. Reviewing the record, the Court finds no evidence the United States was 10 || properly served through the United States Attorney’s Office. Lakeview therefore appears 11 ||to have failed to comply with Rule 4(3). 12 If a defendant is not properly served, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over that 13 || defendant and the defendant is not bound by a judgment in the underlying litigation. 14 || Mason v. Genisco Tech. Corp., 960 F.2d 849, 851 (9th Cir. 1992). It follows, therefore, 15 a default judgment against an improperly served defendant “is void and has no res 16 || judicata effect.” Id. Here, the United States contends the Superior Court’s default 17 ||judgment is void because the United States was not properly served. Mot., ECF No. 8, 4. 18 || The Court agrees. Because the United States was not properly served in accordance with 19 ||Rule 4(i), the Superior Court’s default judgment is void as to the United States. 20 CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, the United States’ Motion to Vacate Default Judgment 22 ||(ECF No. 8) is GRANTED. Per the United States’ request, it is ORDERED to file its 23 || Answer to the Complaint within thirty days from the date of this Order. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. - 25 Dated: AprilA/, 2021 26 OGER T. BENITEZ United States Distatt Judge 27 28