Kremerman v. White
California Court of Appeal
71 Cal. App. 5th 358, 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 283 (2021)
- Written by Kate Douglas, JD
Facts
Angela White (defendant) leased property in Studio City, California, from Michael Kremerman (plaintiff). After White moved into a home in Woodland Hills, California, Kremerman sued White for breach of the lease and negligence. A registered process server unsuccessfully attempted to serve White several times. In his first nonservice report, the server stated that he attempted to serve White with papers in an unlawful-detainer action. In his second nonservice report, the server stated that he staked out the Studio City address. In his third nonservice report, the server stated that he staked out the Woodland Hills property, but to no avail. Ultimately, the process server purported to serve White through substitute service by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with Sarah Plowden, an authorized employee of a PostalAnnex, which was a commercial mail-receiving entity where White maintained a private mailbox. The return of service indicated that the PostalAnnex was White’s usual abode and that Plowden was a competent member of White’s household. The trial court entered a default and a default judgment against White. White moved to vacate, asserting that she had not been properly served. The trial court denied White’s motion. White appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stratton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
