11
summary judgment. Nor did the defense directly inquire of Manoochehri whether the
purported notice contained the requisite information for service of process. Defendant
confirmed in his testimony that he received a document from plaintiff about a change in
ownership which “stated the new owner, [and] where to mail the rent check.” In response to
being asked whether the notice “provide[d] information about . . . the agent for service of
process” defendant replied “[n]o, I don’t believe so.”
The court found “there were credibility issues with regard to some of the defendant’s
answers to questions.” Though defendant’s testimony was without direct contradiction, it was
equivocal, the trial court was not bound to accept an interested party’s testimony as true
(Blackburn v. Drake (1963) 211 Cal.App.2d 806, 814), and “this court is not in a position to
weigh any conflicts or disputes in the evidence, or to assess the credibility of the witnesses”
(Muzquiz v. City of Emeryville (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1121). Defendant’s testimony,
while uncontradicted and unimpeached on this point, was not of such character and weight as to
prevent the court from finding that defendant failed to carry his burden to prove that plaintiff
violated section 1962. (See Lent v. California Coastal Com., supra, 62 Cal.App.5th at p. 837;
see also Bookout v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th
at pp. 1486-1487.) Therefore, defendant is not entitled to reversal on this record.
DISPOSITION
The judgment and order denying defendant’s motion to vacate or set aside the judgment
are affirmed. The appeal from the denial of defendant’s motion for new trial is dismissed as
non-appealable. Plaintiff to recover its costs on appeal.