In Evans v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 958, the trial court issued a peremptory writ of mandate requiring the DMV to set aside its order revoking an automobile dismantler's license, on the ground the dismantler had not received actual notice of the hearing to revoke his license. The appellate court reversed, holding actual notice was not required in a disciplinary proceeding, as long as the DMV employed a manner of service reasonably calculated to provide notice. (Id. at pp. 963-964.) Although the DMV had discretion to grant relief from default to the dismantler, it did not do so because the only support for the dismantler's request was his unsworn statement that he had not received notice. (Id. at p. 973.) The appellate court concluded this was not an abuse of discretion. "The onus was on the dismantler to provide DMV with an adequate showing that he did not receive notice and that his lack of notice was not due to his avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect. The dismantler failed to meet his burden." (Id. at p. 974.) The Court rejected a due process argument made by an automobile dismantler who claimed he did not receive notice of the proceedings to revoke his automobile dismantler's license. The court concluded that the fact that Evans allegedly did not receive the notice personally, and thus did not attend the hearing, does not mean the notice deprived him of due process. (Ibid.)