Poorsina v. Tseng

Background

Ali R. Poorsina, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that Tan Tseng, Terrenz Kukant Cam, Boi Anh Hong, and Kevin Tu Cam participated in a conspiracy to rig bids for properties sold at public auctions in San Francisco and San Mateo counties. Poorsina alleged that the scheme included his former residence at 1563 28th Avenue in San Francisco. His complaint asserted claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1 for bid rigging and 18 U.S.C. § 1341 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud.

The Clerk of Court entered defaults against Tseng, T.K. Cam, and Hong, but not against K.T. Cam. Poorsina moved for a judgment based on those defaults. Tseng moved to set aside the defaults, and T.K. Cam and Hong joined that motion. Tseng, T.K. Cam, and Hong also moved to consolidate this case with another case involving Tseng’s purchase of the same property.

Service and Default Motions

A default judgment is a judgment requested against a party who has not defended the case. Before entering one, the court must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, which generally requires valid service of the summons and complaint.

The court held that Poorsina had not shown valid service on Tseng or T.K. Cam. The proofs of service showed that a notice and acknowledgment document—not the actual summons and complaint—was mailed. In addition, neither person signed and returned the acknowledgment, and the attempts at personal service were unsuccessful.

The court also held that service on Hong was ineffective. Hong did not sign and return the mailed acknowledgment. The process server left documents with a person identified as Hong’s mother, but the record did not show that Hong lived at that address or that her mother lived there, as required for that type of service.

Because service was ineffective, the court granted the motion to set aside the entry of default against Tseng, T.K. Cam, and Hong. Because no default had been entered against K.T. Cam, the court stated that default judgment could not be entered against him. The court therefore denied Poorsina’s motion for default judgment against each defendant.

Motion to Amend or Correct

The court denied Poorsina’s “Motion to Amend/Correct Notice of Motion for Entry of Default Judgment.” To the extent the filing attempted to refile the default-judgment motion, it was denied for the same reasons as the original motion. To the extent it sought to correct the hearing notice, it was denied because such a motion was not recognized by rule or statute, was unnecessary, and was moot.

Motion to Consolidate

The court denied the motion to consolidate this case with the related action. Although both cases involved Tseng’s purchase of the same property, the court found that they involved different plaintiffs, mostly different defendants, and different allegations. Poorsina alleged a bid-rigging conspiracy involving nearly 50 properties, while the other case alleged damages from a wrongful eviction. The court found no common legal or factual questions sufficient to justify consolidation.

Order

The court ordered Poorsina to serve the defendants and provide proof of service within 30 days. It noted that Tseng, T.K. Cam, and Hong had authorized their lawyer to accept service on their behalf by acknowledgment or personal service at the lawyer’s office.