Plaintiff, JIM MANOS DRILLING AND PUMP, INC., a California corporation, a.k.a. MANOS PUMP SERVICE filed this action against Defendant, FELICITAS I. OCAMPO, after a failed attempt to drill a productive water well upon land titled in the name of FELICITAS I. OCAMPO (hereinafter Ms. Ocampo) in El Cajon in May 2015. After being presented with a bill for drilling services nearly double the written proposal accepted by Ms. Ocampo, and given that no written change order had been signed by Ms. Ocampo authorizing or agreeing to the expanded work, communications between the Plaintiff and Ms. Ocampo broke down resulting in the recording of a mechanical lien upon the property and a subsequent complaint to foreclose upon the property. The complaint was delivered by substitute service, as a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect by Ms. Ocampo, a default was entered against her in this action. Because of the compelling and upsetting facts surrounding that taking of the default, which she now timely moves this court for relief to permit the filing of her answer so that she may mount her defense and have the case decided on the merits, not by forfeit. Ms. Ocampo has two young children,, one a healthy and active 3 year old girl, her other younger child was born
…show more content…
Ocampo was confused why a default was requested when the court date was not until January 29, 2016. The first actual notice Ms. Ocampo had of a 30 day requirement to submit a written documents in response was came when she again reviewed the Summons. Ms. Ocampo then called an attorney and scheduled the first appointment available to learn what the meaning of the documents were and what she must do to oppose the request for default and to state her side of the case. Ms. Ocampo believes she has a substantial legal and factual defense to the action, as shown by my proposed answer to the complaint served along with this motion and attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of John Q. Goodrich,
Ocampo was confused why a default was requested when the court date was not until January 29, 2016. The first actual notice Ms. Ocampo had of a 30 day requirement to submit a written documents in response was came when she again reviewed the Summons. Ms. Ocampo then called an attorney and scheduled the first appointment available to learn what the meaning of the documents were and what she must do to oppose the request for default and to state her side of the case. Ms. Ocampo believes she has a substantial legal and factual defense to the action, as shown by my proposed answer to the complaint served along with this motion and attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of John Q. Goodrich,