Filed 10/20/21 County of Alameda v. Eluyera CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

OLUBUKOLA FREEMAN 

ELUYERA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A162018

 (Alameda County

 Super. Ct. No. HF19025621)

Defendant Olubukola Freeman Eluyera1 appeals in propria persona 

from an order denying his motion to vacate a judgment determining paternity 

and child support. Defendant contends that the trial court lacked personal 

jurisdiction over him and that his paternity was not established by 

admissible evidence. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In July 2019, the Alameda County Department of Child Support 

Services (Department) filed a summons and complaint (Judicial Council

Forms, form FL-600) regarding parental obligations against defendant, 

seeking to establish child support for minor I.A. The complaint identified 

I.A.’s parents as O.A. and defendant and alleged that I.A. was “conceived 

1 Throughout his papers, defendant identifies himself as a man “known 

to use the name Olubukola-Freeman: Eluyera.” 
2

during the marriage of mother and father.” The proposed judgment (Judicial 

Council Forms, form FL-630) specified monthly child support from defendant 

in the amount of $1,354 beginning in August 2019, as well as an order 

requiring defendant to provide and maintain health insurance coverage for 

the minor. 

In January 2020, the Department filed a proof of service stating in 

relevant part that on December 20, 2019, the declarant served defendant by 

first class mail, postage prepaid, with copies of the summons; complaint;

proposed judgment; blank answer (Judicial Council Forms, form FL-610)2;

information sheet for service of process (Judicial Council Forms, form FL611); income and expense declaration (Judicial Council Forms, form FL-150);

visitation verification; and health insurance information form. The 

documents were mailed to an address in Texas with return receipt requested. 

The proof of service attached a certified mail receipt dated December 27, 

2019, purporting to bear defendant’s handwritten name and signature. The 

complaint informed defendant that if he did not file the attached answer 

within 30 days from the date of service, “the proposed Judgment will become 

a final determination that you are the parent and responsible for support.” 

In February 2020, the Department moved for judgment regarding child 

support and health care. 

On May 11, 2020, defendant filed an “Affidavit of Status” in which he 

stated he was a “Non-State Citizen” and “security interest holder” to property 

belonging to a corporate entity named Olubukola Freeman Eluyera, which he 

referred to as the “Debtor.” He stated that all contracts and legal duties of 

2 Judicial Council Forms, form FL-610 has been approved for mandatory 

use and therefore “must be used by all parties[.]” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

1.31(a).)
3

the Debtor “have been lawfully cancelled, rescinded, and/or revoked” and that 

he was “distinguished, set apart and object[ed] to any and all body 

attachments to the Debtor.” Defendant further stated that no agency or 

corporate entity had jurisdiction over him. 

Defendant also filed an “Affidavit of Denial of Acknowledgment of 

Paternity and Parentage” in which he stated he was not a party to any valid 

contract with the State of California or the Department that required him to 

pay money or submit to DNA testing. He further expressed his lack of 

consent and his objection to the jurisdiction of the trial court. Additionally, 

defendant denied being the biological and legal father of I.A, stating he “did 

not have sexual intercourse with [O.A.]” in California and “there’s no 

evidence to the contrary.”

The hearing on the Department’s motion for judgment was rescheduled 

several times. Each time, either the Department or the clerk of the superior 

court served notice of the rescheduled hearing date. 

On July 2, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the Department’s 

motion for judgment regarding child support and health care. Neither parent

was present. The trial court found that it had jurisdiction over defendant

and that defendant was the father of I.A. The court ordered that defendant 

pay monthly child support in the amount of $1,349 commencing August 1, 

2019–December 31, 2019, and $1,264 per month commencing January 1, 

2020, and that he also provide and maintain health insurance for the minor. 

Judgment was entered on July 23, 2020. 

Defendant moved to vacate and quash the judgment. He argued the 

trial court lacked jurisdiction over him because the summons, minute order of 

the July 2, 2020 hearing, and the judgment were not properly served on him. 

Defendant further argued that he “had no acknowledgment and did not 
4

consent to this action and or hearing an[d] was found to be the father of the 

minor child . . . without having proper notice[.] Defendant never received 

service of summons upon himself granting him his right to defend himself 

under due process of law.” In support of the motion, defendant submitted

copies of the “Affidavit of Status” and “Affidavit of Denial of Acknowledgment 

of Paternity and Parentage” that he had previously filed in May 2020. 

On December 10, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on defendant’s 

motion to vacate and quash the judgment. Defendant argued there was no 

notice or proof of service of the July 2, 2020, hearing and no proof of paternity 

or “DNA confirmation.” Thus, according to defendant, “jurisdiction ha[d] not 

been established to have an order entered against [him].” 

In January 2021, the trial court issued a “short form order after 

hearing” (Judicial Council Forms, form FL-688) that denied defendant’s 

motion to vacate and quash the judgment. Defendant now appeals from that 

order. 

DISCUSSION

A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to set aside a 

judgment is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Philippine Exp. & 

Foreign Loan Guar. Corp. v. Chuidian (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1058, 1077.) 

Where a defendant moves to quash service of process and there is no conflict 

in the evidence, the question of jurisdiction is purely one of law and the 

reviewing court engages in an independent review of the record. (Snowney v. 

Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062.) If there are 

conflicts in the evidence, we review the trial court’s express or implied factual 

findings under the substantial evidence standard, drawing all legitimate and 

reasonable inferences to uphold the judgment. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. 
5

Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449; In re Marriage of Connolly

(1979) 23 Cal.3d 590, 597–598.)

A summons may be served on a person outside California “by sending a 

copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served by firstclass mail, postage prepaid, requiring a return receipt. Service of a summons 

by this form of mail is deemed complete on the 10th day after such mailing.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 415.40.) 

Defendant contends service by mail was defective because the attorney 

for plaintiff County of Alameda “failed to provide proof of acknowledgment of 

receipt which would be considered evidence of the personam jurisdiction the 

lower court lacked, making the judgment against [defendant] void.” To the 

contrary, the Department filed a proof of service attaching a certified mail 

receipt bearing the name defendant admits he is known to use, along with his 

purported signature. The proof of service, which showed service in 

compliance with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 415.40, 

created a presumption that defendant received the summons and complaint 

(Evid. Code, § 641; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a, subd. (3)), and defendant 

submitted no evidence rebutting that presumption or casting doubt on his 

signature on the certified mail receipt.

3 In any event, the proof of service, on 

its own, constituted substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s 

determination that defendant was properly served.

Defendant’s arguments regarding the paternity determination fare no 

better. He complains that the Department “solely acted on the hearsay 

3 The affidavits attached to defendant’s motion to vacate and quash did 

not deny defendant’s receipt of the summons, complaint, and other notices 

and forms. Rather, defendant merely attempted to distinguish himself from 

a corporate entity he identified as the Debtor and expressed his refusal to 

consent to the trial court’s jurisdiction.
6

testimony of the acting Attorney and/or the other parent,” and that the trial 

court “made its ruling on presumptions, assumptions and hearsay without 

acknowledging the sworn unrebutted Affidavits under penalty of perjury[.]” 

In so arguing, defendant overlooks his own failure to file an answer to the 

complaint and the effect of his default under the summary procedures for 

determining paternity and child support as set forth in the Family Code.

Local child support agencies have “the responsibility for promptly and 

effectively establishing, modifying, and enforcing child support obligations.” 

(Fam. Code, § 17400, subd. (a).) “In bringing an action to enforce these 

obligations, child support agencies must use ‘simplified summons, complaint, 

and answer forms’ developed by the Judicial Council.” (County of Los Angeles 

Child Support Services Dept. v. Watson (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 638, 642.) The 

complaint must be accompanied by a proposed judgment and “shall include a 

notice to the support obligor that the proposed judgment will become effective 

if the obligor fails to file an answer with the court within 30 days of service.” 

(Fam. Code, § 17400, subd. (d)(2).)

The Family Code sets forth the process for entering judgment in 

circumstances such as those presented here. “Notwithstanding any other 

law, in an action filed by the local child support agency pursuant to Section 

17400, 17402, or 17404, a judgment shall be entered without hearing, 

without the presentation of any other evidence or further notice to the 

defendant, upon the filing of proof of service by the local child support agency 

evidencing that more than 30 days have passed since the simplified summons 

and complaint, proposed judgment, blank answer, blank income and expense 

declaration, and all notices required by this division were served on the 

defendant.” (Fam. Code, § 17430, subd. (a).) “If the defendant fails to file an 

answer with the court within 30 days of having been served as specified in 
7

subdivision (d) of Section 17400, or at any time before the default judgment is 

entered, the proposed judgment filed with the original summons and 

complaint shall be conformed by the court as the final judgment and a copy 

provided to the local child support agency, unless the local child support 

agency has filed a declaration and amended proposed judgment pursuant to 

subdivision (c).” (Fam. Code, § 17430, subd. (b).)

Here, the Department utilized the simplified forms developed by the 

Judicial Council for child support actions. The proof of service indicates the 

service package included the Judicial Council forms for, among other things, 

the summons and complaint, proposed judgment, blank answer, and

information sheet. As discussed, the complaint informed defendant that his 

failure to file the attached answer form within 30 days of service would result 

in the proposed judgment becoming the final determination of his parentage 

and support obligations. The record contains no answer filed by defendant on 

mandatory Judicial Council Forms, form FL-610, and defendant does not 

contend he filed one. Nor does defendant contend or demonstrate that his 

self-styled affidavits constituted an answer to the complaint. Because 

defendant failed to file an answer within 30 days of service or before 

judgment was entered, judgment was properly entered against him. (Fam. 

Code, § 17430, subd. (b).) Accordingly, defendant’s evidentiary arguments 

challenging the court’s paternity determination do not support vacating the 

judgment, and defendant does not otherwise demonstrate any basis for relief 

from his default.

DISPOSITION

The order denying defendant’s motion to vacate and quash the 

judgment is affirmed. Plaintiff shall recover its costs on appeal.
8

_________________________

Fujisaki, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Tucher, P. J.

_________________________

Rodriguez, J.

A162018/County of Alameda v. Eluyera