California Code of Civil Procedure Section 473.5

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 473.5 provides for setting aside a default "when service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action and a default or default judgment has been entered against him or her in the action." (Section 473.5, subd. (a).) A party who has not received such notice "may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action." (Ibid.) "A party seeking relief under section 473.5 must provide an affidavit showing under oath that his or her lack of actual notice in time to defend was not caused by inexcusable neglect or avoidance of service. " (Anastos v. Lee (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1314, 1319.) The moving party has the burden of showing good cause for relief from a default or a default judgment. (Tunis v. Barrow (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1069, 1079-1080.) In addition, on appeal, it is the appellant's burden to affirmatively demonstrate reversible error. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) We review an order denying a section 473.5 motion to set aside a default for abuse of discretion. (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 547.) Section 473, subdivision (b) provides that a court may set aside a default or default judgment taken against a party "through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." Section 473, subdivision (d), provides that "the court may . . . on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order." "'A default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.' " (Sakaguchi v. Sakaguchi (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 852, 858.) A ruling on a motion to set aside under section 473 "'rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion, resulting in injury sufficiently grave as to amount to a manifest miscarriage of justice.'" (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1200.)