In Goya v. P.E.R.U. Enterprises (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 886, the appellate court concluded that, even though service of the summons and complaint was made on the defendants, such service did not result in actual notice of the action to them in time to defend. (Id., at p. 891.) Concerning one of the defendants, the appellate court predicated this conclusion on the fact that the defendant's supporting declarations established: the defendant was never personally served with the summons and complaint or amended complaint either as an individual or on behalf of any fictitious entities, never received any documents relating to the lawsuit, and never knew of the existence of the lawsuit, and had no actual notice in time to defend the action. (Goya v. P.E.R.U. Enterprises, supra, 87 Cal.App.3d at pp. 891-892.) The appellate court found this lack of actual notice to be the case even though the plaintiff's opposing declarations alleged service on the defendant at his place of business, by handing the assistant of the defendant the summons and complaint and by thereafter mailing copies of the summons and complaint to that defendant. (Id., at p. 891.) Additionally, concerning other defendants, the appellate court came to the same conclusion that the service did not result in actual notice on the basis the other defendants' supporting declarations established that although these defendants were served with copies of the summons and complaint, they were unaware of the nature of the documents and stated the documents did not result in actual notice to them in time to defend the action. (Goya v. P.E.R.U. Enterprises, supra, 87 Cal.App.3d at p. 892.) The appellate court found defendant lacked actual notice even though plaintiff's opposing declarations alleged service on these defendants at their personal residence. (Id., at p. 891.)