Okorie Okorocha Argues Before the 4th District Court of Appeal on One Hour’s Notice
Renowned forensic toxicology attorney Okorie Okorocha appeared before the Fourth District Court of Appeal with only one hour’s notice to present oral argument in a complex appeal involving service of process, default judgments, and post-judgment appearances. Watch the full oral argument below, followed by the official transcript for reference.
Watch the Oral Argument
Full Transcript
Court Clerk: Whenever appellant’s ready, you may proceed.
Okorie Okorocha: May it please the Court. My name is Okorie, O-K-O-R-I-E. Last name Okorocha, O-K-O-R-O-C-H-A.
Our key point in this case is Meyer got a set-aside of the default judgment. He was properly served by certified receipts signed by Mr. Meyer, and he does not dispute this. He also appeared with an attorney in the judgment collection action when this judgment was domesticated in Nevada. And so, he—I see if I have the lawyer’s name—but he did appear with a lawyer. And under what I call the Farmers case, a general appearance in a post-judgment action is an appearance for purposes of curing all defects.
Also, he was found to be evading service. Process servers would go to his residence and a female would answer and say, “Oh, let me go get him.” And then she comes back and says he’s not home after all. The process server went there five times. Shortly after all the briefing was finished, he filed a declaration saying he does live at that Nevada address that we were trying to effect service on. He never once disputed that his signature was on the United States Postal Service certified mail receipt.
There are many reasons, including his post-judgment appearances—he had six different attorneys in the same case.
Justice: And where were those post-judgment appearances? Were they in California or Nevada?
Okorie Okorocha: Nevada.
Justice: Okay, thank you.
Okorie Okorocha: This case, just for background, arises out of the respondent doing illegal contract work in California where he was not licensed. In his response, he makes ad hominem attacks on my client. My client’s record was wiped clean because I argued that case—I think it’s the same courthouse—and we were successful in having factual innocence. So he doesn’t have any felony convictions. The trial court was correct in its original tentative, but somehow we got off the subject.
I want to give one cite: a general appearance made after entry of judgment has the effect of curing any defect arising from the lack of jurisdiction due to failure to serve or notify a person of the proceedings. A judgment based upon such an appearance is valid. It’s Farmers National Bank v. Superior Court, and it’s been the law since 1945, 25 Cal.2d 842, pages 846–847.
So either way, there’s a general appearance, which cures any defect. Second, he’s never challenged that he signed for the service with his signature on certified mail. He’s never disputed that. Then he transfers the house into a spendthrift trust to avoid collections. And now he files a declaration saying that he lives at that house after all. That was filed the third day of June in 2025 in Nevada.
Justice: Is that in our record?
Okorie Okorocha: No, because he filed it after the briefing.
And that’s all I have. I’d like to reserve for rebuttal.
Justice: Certainly.
Okorie Okorocha: Thank you.
Respondent’s Counsel (Ruocheng Liu): Good afternoon, Your Honor. Ruocheng Liu for respondent Michael Meyer — R-U-O-C-H-E-N, last name L-I-U.
I think the order should be affirmed for several reasons. Firstly, appellant’s procedural errors preclude him from arguing the factual merits. Appellant Moran filed three separate oppositions. He failed to appear at the September 12, 2024 hearing and never objected to the evidence. Since appellant didn’t show up, he waived his right to argue any facts. Appellant failed to file a request for judicial notice at trial court, so he waived his right for judicial notice. Plus, on the same date that the minute order was emailed to the parties from the court, appellant Moran filed a notice of appeal prior to awaiting the five-day requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.12. Therefore, appellant Moran prematurely filed his notice of appeal before allowing anyone to file a notice of entry of order. The court’s order therefore became a nonappealable order, raising a question of appealability.
Justice: If we get beyond the appealability issue, how do you respond to his substantive arguments?
Respondent’s Counsel: Are you referring to his alleged claim about Michael Meyer’s actual notice or knowledge of the judgment?
Justice: Yes.
Respondent’s Counsel: I think it’s irrelevant because appellant’s counsel improperly seeks to admit new evidence and facts that do not appear in the record but are asserted in the brief — including allegations regarding appellant’s Nevada lawsuit and supposed knowledge of the California judgment by respondent Meyer. Facts or documents not in the record must be disregarded.
Justice: The Nevada address was in fact your client’s address, correct?
Respondent’s Counsel: I don’t think so. His actual address is in Orange County, based on my knowledge. The property used to be owned by his family trust, but he did not live there.
Secondly, the record demonstrates fraudulent and defective service. Appellant Moran filed a false and frivolous lawsuit against Meyer, improperly serving him at an out-of-state address by certified mail instead of his Orange County residence and using a property owned by Meyer’s family trust. Moran then submitted a fraudulent proof of service by mail in place of the mandatory POS-010 form, falsely claiming a mailing date 30 days earlier than the actual USPS tracking date. Even worse, the judgment was recorded on January 3, 2022 — six months before the summons was even issued — making the judgment procedurally impossible.
Justice: I’m sorry, Ms. Liu, could you repeat that point? I was taking notes and may have missed something.
Respondent’s Counsel: No problem. Moran submitted a fraudulent proof of service by mail instead of the mandatory form. He claimed a mailing date 30 days earlier than the USPS tracking date, showing a pattern of fraudulent statements about proof of service.
Justice: She mentioned something about six months — that it was served six months before the judgment was entered?
Respondent’s Counsel: Yes. The judgment was recorded on January 3, 2022 — six months before the summons was issued on July 13, 2022. So there’s a discrepancy. It’s our position that the judgment was entered before the summons was even issued.
Justice: Okay.
Respondent’s Counsel: Thirdly, respondent’s motion was timely under CCP section 473.5. Respondent filed his motion on July 2, 2024, well within the two-year statute. Respondent Meyer’s motion to set aside was based on CCP 473.5, not section 473. It’s a two-year deadline to file a motion to set aside, not six months, because the judgment is based on extrinsic fraud — not excusable neglect. Even if appellant could prove respondent had knowledge of the judgment before, the motion to set aside was timely, well within the two-year deadline.
What’s more, appellant never filed or served a notice of entry of judgment, so the deadline never began to run.
Justice: You said it was within two years, but you just told us the judgment was entered in January of ’22 and the motion was filed in July of ’24. Am I mishearing you?
Respondent’s Counsel: Respondent Meyer filed the motion to vacate on July 2, 2024, which is well within the two-year statutory period after entry of judgment. The judgment was entered on January 3, 2023 — sorry, not 2022.
Justice: Okay, all right.
Respondent’s Counsel: Finally, policy strongly favors trials on the merits. Where service is defective, courts must err on the side of protecting defendants’ rights. The trial court carefully reviewed the evidence, relied on multiple grounds beyond service defects, and exercised its discretion properly in granting relief. For these reasons, we respectfully request the Court affirm the order setting aside the default judgment.
Justice: Thank you.
Okorie Okorocha (Rebuttal): Your Honors, I’m not going to take up any time responding to the allegations of fraud because somebody used the wrong proof-of-service form. Talking about things that have no merit too much can start to make it seem like there’s some merit there that one is debating.
The ruling — the minute order of the court — said it was sought under 473(d), and that’s only if it’s void as a matter of law. But I believe the court — Meyer originally tried to set aside the default under 473.5, but the judge converted it to a CCP 473(d).
The other arguments are more form over substance. I don’t know what else my client needs to do to serve this guy when he has a signed certified mail receipt and the guy appeared with a lawyer in the Nevada courts. That’s a general appearance. It wasn’t a special appearance to challenge jurisdiction. He appeared in the action with six different attorneys. To say he was unaware — why was he there, then? It just doesn’t make any sense.
I’ll leave it there, because the personal attacks just show the paucity of the opposing arguments, as Justice Sills once said.
Thank you.
Justice: Thank you. Thank you to both counsel. The matter is submitted.
Court Clerk: The matter is submitted. Thank you.
Case: People v. International Fidelity Insurance Company.
