In Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th at 503, the parties stipulated to a judgment for purposes of appeal. Despite the parties' stipulation, the trial court clerk mistakenly sent to the parties a "'Notice to File Dismissal and/or Order to Show Cause'" stating that the court was advised of the settlement and plaintiffs had 45 days to file a dismissal. ( Lee v. Placer Title Co., supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 507.) The notice advised that if the plaintiffs failed to file the dismissal within 45 days, all counsel were ordered to attend an order to show cause hearing as to why the action should not be dismissed pursuant to rule 225. The clerk sent the notice to the plaintiffs at an old address, vacated some 16 months prior to the notice. No parties attended the hearing and the court dismissed the plaintiffs' case. The dismissal judgment and minute order were also sent to the plaintiffs at the wrong address. In Lee, the plaintiffs filed a notice of change of address. More than a year later, the plaintiffs filed with the trial court their trial briefs and motions in limine, indicating their current address (the same address shown in the notice of change of address). These were the last documents filed before the clerk sent the rule 225 notice to plaintiffs at the old vacated address. The Lee court held the rule 225 dismissal was void, holding: "since the notice was not sent to the 'office address as last given by that person on any document filed in the cause,' as required by section 1013, subdivision (a), the notice was not effective." ( Lee v. Placer Title Co., supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 510.) The Lee court explained that "successful service by mail requires strict compliance with all statutory requirements, including those set forth in section 1013; the failure to comply deprives a court of jurisdiction to act." (28 Cal.App.4th at p. 509.)