Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00801/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00801-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Civil Enforcement of Employee Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY

OF BOSTON AND THE HENKELS &

MCCOY, INC. LIFE BENEFIT PLAN

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv801-LAB (WVG)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

vs.

ESTATE OF MARTIN QUIHUI-LOPEZ,

et al.,

Defendants.

Without first obtaining a hearing date from the undersigned judge’s clerk, as required

by Civil Local Rule 7.1(b) Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against Claudia

Veronica Lopez Carranza. “The requirement that a party obtain a hearing date from the

judge's clerk is no empty formality; it is a rule of substantial importance.” Kashin v. kent,

2007 WL 1975435 at *1 (S.D. Cal., Apr. 26, 2007). On this basis alone the motion could be

rejected. Id.; see also Kashin v. Kent, 342 Fed. Appx. 341, 341 (9 Cir. 2009) (application th

for attorney’s fees filed without first obtaining hearing date was “properly rejected”).

This is not the only problem, however. The motion identifies itself as unopposed. But

apparently that means it is unopposed by the other Defendants; nothing in the motion or

attached to it suggests Lopez Carranza has consented to entry of judgment against herself. 

- 1 - 16cv801

Case 3:16-cv-00801-LAB-WVG Document 23 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A third problem concerns service on Lopez Carranza. First, it is not clear she has

been given adequate notice of these proceedings. Her address does not appear in the

docket and she is unrepresented by counsel, so she would not automatically receive a copy

of the notice of entry of default or anything else filed in the docket. But more importantly, it

is not clear service of process and service of the motion for default judgment were properly

effected.

The documents were served on Luis Carrillo Piña, whom Liberty Life asserts is Lopez

Carranza’s agent for service of process. Liberty Life has presented a document, in English,

notarized by a Mexican notary, saying that Lopez Carranza, a Mexican resident and national,

appoints Carrillo Piña as her agent for lawsuits and for several other purposes as well. (See

Docket no. 6-2.) Lopez Carranza’s signature appears directly below her photocopied

identification, so it is unclear whether this was intended as her signature affirming her

agreement to the instrument of appointment. And the document’s source and authenticity

have not been properly attested to. Although an English translation is provided, it isn’t clear

who translated it or whether the translation has been properly attested to.

The document says Lopez Carranza appeared before him and has given Carrillo

Piña general power of attorney for lawsuits, as well as for certain other purposes. Lopez 1

Carranza apparently lives in Mexico (see id. at 3), which could explain why she gave a U.S.

resident general power of attorney. A further wrinkle is that Carrillo Piña was not served

personally; rather, the proof of service says the papers were left with an adult occupant at

his address. (See Docket no. 14.) And although Carrillo Piña was arguably served by

leaving a copy of the papers with the house’s co-occupant, the follow-up mailing required by

§ 415.20(b) was attempted by mailing a copy of the papers, not to Carrillo Piña, but to Lopez

Carranza at the address where the papers were left. (See Docket no. 14.) Whether the

papers were ever forwarded to her is unclear. And whether all of this suffices under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4 is also unclear.

/ / /

 The document refers to him as Mr. Luis Manuel Carrillo Piña. 1

- 2 - 16cv801

Case 3:16-cv-00801-LAB-WVG Document 23 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

None of the briefing addresses whether this amounts to proper service on Lopez

Carranza, and it is not even clear whether Lopez Carranza knows about this action. For

these reasons, and because no hearing date for the motion was obtained as required under

local rules, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

If Liberty Life wishes to renew its motion, it should obtain a hearing date as required

by local rule, and should also brief the issue of proper service. In particular, the briefing

should address whether the instrument appointing Carrillo as Lopez Carranza’s agent is valid

under Mexican law (where it was entered into) as well as U.S. law, and why the Court can

rely on the English translation. It should address whether Carrillo Piña’s status as Lopez

Carranza’s agent for lawsuits makes him her agent for purpose of service of process. It

should explain how Liberty Life knows the address where service was effected is in fact

Carrillo Piña’s current address. And it should address the question of whether service on

an appointed agent may be effected by leaving a copy of the papers with an adult occupant

of the agent’s house and afterwards mailing the papers as described in this order. See Cal.

Civ. Proc. Code §§ 415.20, 416.90.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 8, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 16cv801

Case 3:16-cv-00801-LAB-WVG Document 23 Filed 12/08/16 Page 3 of 3