Update 13 January 2026: Apparently embarrassed by his conflicted position formerly representing my company Michael Kernan decided to sub in Paul Katrinak (California Bar #164057) to support his client’s shady desires. Katrinak accused me in oral arguments on 4 December 2025 of owning a hacienda in Mexico. Sounds nice, but untrue. What is true is that Raymond Paul Katrinak has a Trump-tier belly, which he adorns with an extra-long also, Trump-like necktie. Katrinak is best known for having his California Bar license pulled in October 2010, during which time he was not eligible to practice law in California due to discipline with actual suspension.

Katrinak, Ellis, Michael Kernan, and one other person attempted to push through a default in my case, because I didn’t respond to their suit within 30 days. I appeared in court pro se, meaning without an attorney and moved to set aside the default. Despite all the legal firepower and Ms. Ellis ongoing willingness to present unlawful behavior in open court as though it were something to be proud of, Katrinak, his girthy gunt+necktie emsamble, Kernan, etc did not prevail and the default was set aside. Below are the details. Back to the Mexican Hacienda for Urbina.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Civil Division

Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 25

25STLC00561 December 10, 2025

SHARIKA ELLIS vs DIGITAL MARKETING ADVISORS, et

4:15 PM

al.

Judge: Honorable Karine Mkrtchyan Judicial Assistant: S. Gabb Courtroom Assistant: None CSR: None

ERM: None

Deputy Sheriff: None

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances

For Defendant(s): No Appearances

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Ruling on Submitted Matter

The Court, having taken the matter under submission on 12/04/2025 for Hearing on Motion to

Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) Entered Against Defendant Zachary Urbina on

03/20/2025, now rules as follows:

Defendant Zachary Urbina’s Motion to Set Aside Default is GRANTED.

The default entered against Defendant Zachary Urbina on March 20, 2025 is hereby VACATED

and SET ASIDE.

The Court schedules an Order to Show Cause Re: Proof of Service of the Summons and

Complaint for 02/23/2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse.

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) NO

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NO

OPPOSITION: Filed on November 19, 2025 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of December 2, 2025 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On January 23, 2025, Plaintiff Sharika Ellis (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against

Minute Order Page 1 of 8SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Civil Division

Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 25

25STLC00561 December 10, 2025

SHARIKA ELLIS vs DIGITAL MARKETING ADVISORS, et

4:15 PM

al.

Judge: Honorable Karine Mkrtchyan Judicial Assistant: S. Gabb Courtroom Assistant: None CSR: None

ERM: None

Deputy Sheriff: None

Defendants Digital Marketing Advisors (“Digital Marketing”) and Zachary Urbina aka Zachary

Elliot (“Urbina”) (“Defendants”) and Does 1-100, alleging Intentional Misappropriation of

Plaintiff’s Right to Publicity and Breach of Contract causes of action. (Compl., p. 1.) Plaintiff

seeks “general damages in the amount of no more than $35,000,” interest, and costs of suit.

(Compl., Prayer.)

On March 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed proof of service demonstrating Urbina was served by

substituted service on Wednesday, January 29, 2025 at “200 South Barrington Avenue # 491451,

Los Angeles, CA 90049” (the “Service Address”). (3/13/25 Proof of Service.)

On March 18, 2025, default was entered against Digital Marketing.

On March 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed proof of service demonstrating a registered process server

served Urbina by substituted service on Wednesday, January 29, 2025 at the Service Address.

(3/13/25 Proof of Service.)

On March 20, 2025, default was entered against Urbina.

On March 28, 2025, a Notice of Related Case was filed as to Case Number 24BHSC02563

(Digital Marketing Advisors, et al. v. Ellis).

On September 29, 2025, Does 1-100 were dismissed without prejudice.

On October 16, 2025, Urbina, proceeding pro se, filed the instant Motion to Set Aside Default

(the “Motion”).

On November 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Opposition and request for judicial notice.

No Reply has been filed.

II. Procedural Issues

As an initial matter, Urbina failed to file proof of service demonstrating Plaintiff was served in

any manner with the Motion and notice of hearing.

However, given the timely Opposition, the Court exercises its discretion to address the Motion

on the merits.

Minute Order Page 2 of 8SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Civil Division

Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 25

25STLC00561 December 10, 2025

SHARIKA ELLIS vs DIGITAL MARKETING ADVISORS, et

4:15 PM

al.

Judge: Honorable Karine Mkrtchyan Judicial Assistant: S. Gabb Courtroom Assistant: None CSR: None

ERM: None

Deputy Sheriff: None

III. Judicial Notice Request

In conjunction with the Opposition, Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of 20

Complaints filed by Urbina in various actions. (Jud. Notice Request, pp. 1-3, Exhs. 1-20.)

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request pursuant to Evidence Code section 452.

IV. Legal Standard & Discussion

Urbina seeks relief under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473, subdivision (b) and 473.5 due to

Urbina’s surprise and lack of actual notice. (Motion, pp. 3-5.) Specifically, Urbina contends that

Urbina was never served with the lawsuit by either personal service or service to Urbina’s

company’s post office box – the latter of which was inappropriately used for service of the

summons and complaint – and Urbina lives in Mexico City. (Motion, Urbina Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.)

Accordingly, Urbina was surprised when he received news of this lawsuit, and he lacked actual

notice in time to the defend the action.

In Opposition, Plaintiff contends: (1) the Motion is untimely under Code of Civil Procedure

section 473, subdivision (b); (2) Urbina perjured himself in his declaration and thus all testimony

should be rejected; (3) Urbina fails to show excusable neglect justifying setting aside the default;

(4) Urbina is judicially and equitably estopped from arguing service was improper given that

Plaintiff lists the service address on 20 Complaints filed in the Los Angeles Small Claims Court

as Plaintiff’s address to contact; (5) Urbina fails to assert any meritorious defenses; and (6)

Urbina had actual notice of this lawsuit in time to defend. (Opp., pp. 5-14.) In support of the

Opposition, Plaintiff submits the judicially noticed 20 complaints discussed above and two

declarations demonstrating Urbina knew of the lawsuit prior to and after entry of default. (Opp.;

Opp. Jud. Notice Req.; Kernan Decl.; Katrinak Decl.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b)

The court has broad discretion to vacate the entry of default, default judgment, or a dismissal

where the moving party timely establishes a proper ground for relief. (Cruz v. Fagor America,

Inc. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 488, 495.) Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b)

contains two distinct provisions for relief from default. The first provision is discretionary and

broad in scope, providing: “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his

or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against

Minute Order Page 3 of 8SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Civil Division

Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 25

25STLC00561 December 10, 2025

SHARIKA ELLIS vs DIGITAL MARKETING ADVISORS, et

4:15 PM

al.

Judge: Honorable Karine Mkrtchyan Judicial Assistant: S. Gabb Courtroom Assistant: None CSR: None

ERM: None

Deputy Sheriff: None

him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application

for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be

filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a

reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or

proceeding was taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

“ ‘Surprise’ referred to in the provision of this section is ‘some condition or situation in which a

party to cause is unexpectedly placed to his injury, without any default or negligence of his own,

which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against.’ ” (Credit Managers Assn. v. National

Independent Business Alliance (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1166, 1173, citation omitted.)

The general underlying purpose of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) is to

promote the determination of actions on their merits. (Even Zohar Const. & Remodeling, Inc. v.

Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 838-839.)

Here, Urbina seeks relief under the discretionary provision of Code of Civil Procedure section

473, subdivision (b).

However, Urbina seeks relief more than six months after the entry of default on March 20, 2025.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) Thus, the Motion is untimely.

Further, Urbina failed to file and serve a copy of a proposed responsive pleading in conjunction

with the Motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

Accordingly, Urbina is not entitled to relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473,

subdivision (b).

Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5

Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 provides, in pertinent part:

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, he or

she may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for

leave to defend the action. The notice of motion shall be served and filed within a reasonable

time, but in no event exceeding the earlier of: (i) two years after entry of a default judgment

against him or her; or (ii) 180 days after service on him or her of a written notice that the default

or default judgment has been entered.

Minute Order Page 4 of 8SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Civil Division

Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 25

25STLC00561 December 10, 2025

SHARIKA ELLIS vs DIGITAL MARKETING ADVISORS, et

4:15 PM

al.

Judge: Honorable Karine Mkrtchyan Judicial Assistant: S. Gabb Courtroom Assistant: None CSR: None

ERM: None

Deputy Sheriff: None

(Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd. (a).)

The motion also “shall be accompanied by an affidavit showing under oath that the party’s lack

of actual notice in time to defend the action was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or

inexcusable neglect. The party shall serve and file with the notice a copy of the answer, motion,

or other pleading proposed to be filed in the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd. (b).)

Here, the Court finds the Motion is timely as to the default. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd. (a).)

Urbina filed the Motion within two years from entry of default (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd.

(a)), and there is no proof of service of the written notice of default on Urbina filed with the

Court. Thus, the Motion is timely.

However, Urbina failed to file and serve a copy of a proposed responsive pleading in conjunction

with the Motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd. (b).)

Further, the Motion is supported by a declaration that fails to state Urbina’s lack of actual notice

was not caused by inexcusable neglect or avoidance of service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subds.

(a), (b).)

Accordingly, Urbina is not entitled to relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d)

“The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in

its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may,

on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d), emphasis added.)

An order is considered “void on its face only when the invalidity is apparent from an inspection

of the judgment roll or court record without consideration of extrinsic evidence.” (Pittman v.

Beck Park Apartments Ltd. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1021.) “There is no time limit to attack

a judgment void on its face.” (Ibid.) However, if “the invalidity is not apparent [by an inspection

of the judgment or the judgment roll], it may be set aside by motion, if such motion is filed

within a reasonable time, i. e., not longer than the time set forth in Code of Civil Procedure,

section 473.” (City of Los Angeles v. Morgan (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 726, 730.) Code of Civil

Procedure section 473, subdivision (d) contains no express time limit, and the California

Minute Order Page 5 of 8SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Civil Division

Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 25

25STLC00561 December 10, 2025

SHARIKA ELLIS vs DIGITAL MARKETING ADVISORS, et

4:15 PM

al.

Judge: Honorable Karine Mkrtchyan Judicial Assistant: S. Gabb Courtroom Assistant: None CSR: None

ERM: None

Deputy Sheriff: None

Supreme Court recently abrogated the rule that Section 473, subdivision (d) is subject to the two-

year limit set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5. (California Capital Ins. Co. v.

Hoehn (2024) 17 Cal.5th 207, 225-226 [“We hold that a section 473(d) motion to vacate a

judgment that is void for lack of proper service is not subject to the judicially imposed two-year

limitation”].)

In the context of a default judgment, Code of Civil Procedure section 670 subdivision (a) defines

the “judgment roll” as the following papers, without being attached together: “[T]he summons,

with the affidavit or proof of service; the complaint; the request for entry of default with a

memorandum indorsed thereon that the default of the defendant in not answering was entered,

and a copy of the judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 670, subd. (a).)

“California is a jurisdiction where the original service of process, which confers jurisdiction,

must conform to statutory requirements or all that follows is void.” (Honda Motor Co. v.

Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048, overruled on other grounds.)

“When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper

service of process ‘the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving,

inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’ ” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140

Cal.App.4th 403, 413; see also Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160.) However, a

proof of service containing a declaration from a registered process server invokes a rebuttable

presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence of the facts stated in the return. (Cal.

Evid. Code, § 647; seeAmerican Express Centurion Bank v. Zara(2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383,

390.)

Here, the Court finds the Motion is timely. As the instant noticed Motion is before the Court and

addresses, in part, improper service of process, the Court exercises its discretion to address Code

of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d).

The Court finds the judgment roll reveals that the default is void on its face. The proof of service

filed on March 20, 2025, states Urbina was substitute served but fails to state whether the service

address was a business, home, or usual mailing address. Thus, the proof of service is invalid, and

Defendant is entitled to relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d).

Even assuming arguendo that the judgment roll did not contain any facial defects, the Court finds

Urbina has demonstrated Urbina is entitled to relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473,

subdivision (d).

Minute Order Page 6 of 8SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Civil Division

Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 25

25STLC00561 December 10, 2025

SHARIKA ELLIS vs DIGITAL MARKETING ADVISORS, et

4:15 PM

al.

Judge: Honorable Karine Mkrtchyan Judicial Assistant: S. Gabb Courtroom Assistant: None CSR: None

ERM: None

Deputy Sheriff: None

Here, the challenged proof of service is attested to by a registered process server and, therefore,

is entitled to a presumption of truth in its contents. (3/20/25 Proof of Service.) The burden of

proof thus shifts to Urbina. (Cal. Evid. Code, § 647; seeAmerican Express Centurion Bank v.

Zara(2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390.)

In support of the challenge to service of process, Urbina submits a declaration that states the

service address is a United States Postal Service post office box, which is an inappropriate

address for service of the summons and complaint. (Motion, Urbina Decl., ¶ 5.) Code of Civil

Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b) states that, in lieu of personal service, a “summons

may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house,

usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States

Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a

person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address other

than a United States Postal Service post office box…” (Code. Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b),

emphasis added.) The Court finds this evidence satisfies Urbina’s burden of proof.

Thus, the burden of proof shifts to Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff fails to present any evidence

demonstrating that the service address is not a United States Postal Service post office box or

that Urbina agreed to be served with the summons and complaint at a United States Postal

Service post office box. While Plaintiff submits evidence of complaints in various legal actions

to demonstrate the service address was the proper address, the Court finds this evidence is

irrelevant to demonstrating Plaintiff served Urbina at a proper address for service of process in

the instant matter. A party’s use of an address on a pleading is not a dispositive showing of a

proper address for service of summons and complaint purposes under the Code of Civil

Procedure. Plaintiff fails to provide legal authority demonstrating otherwise.

The constitutional and statutory requirements re summons exist for defendant’s protection and

therefore are subject to waiver by defendant, provided the waiver is knowing and voluntary. (See

D. H. Overmyer Co. Inc. of Ohio v. Frick Co. (1972) 405 US 174, 185-186).

Thus, Urbina is entitled to relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d).

V. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, The Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default Entered Against Defendant

Zachary Urbina on 03/20/2025 filed by Zachary Urbina on 10/16/2025 is Granted.

Minute Order Page 7 of 8SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Civil Division

Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 25

25STLC00561 December 10, 2025

SHARIKA ELLIS vs DIGITAL MARKETING ADVISORS, et

4:15 PM

al.

Judge: Honorable Karine Mkrtchyan Judicial Assistant: S. Gabb Courtroom Assistant: None CSR: None

ERM: None

Deputy Sheriff: None

The Court orders the default entered on 03/20/2025 as to Zachary Urbina vacated.

Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service of the Summons and Complaint is

scheduled for 02/23/2026 at 09:30 AM in Department 25 at Spring Street Courthouse.

Clerk hereby gives notice.

Certificate of Service is attached.

Minute Order Page 8 of 8

Additional note 4 July 2025: After reading the handful of fake reviews that Michael Kernan likely had his friends and family write on Google and AVVO, there was one honest review which seemed genuine, which also highlighted Kernan’s time wasting issues. I also experienced this and terminated Kernan’s legal services agreement.

Below are my State Bar of California report as well as my Google review about Michael Kernan, a sub-par attorney in California.

I encourage anyone else who has genuine ethical concerns about Michael Kernan to email me for an honest, fact-based discussion or to review our private emails from 2021, which demonstrate his lack of connections at Youtube: ze@shorethang.media

Recently, Michael Kernan, an attorney previously retained by my company, filed suit against my company, representing a client adverse to me. Doing so, Kernan breached his fiduciary duty.

Despite California guidelines stating that attorneys are prohibited in small claims court, a recent hearing at the Beverly Hills Courthouse on February 3rd, 2025 Michael Kernan attempted to improperly insert himself into a hearing for our case (24BHSC02563), despite admonishment from the clerk and bailiff. Kernan insisted he was Sharika Ellis’ attorney, the defendant in my case.

Kernan is known to me professionally, as he previously worked for my company Digital Marketing Advisors in 2021. This presents a galling conflict of interest. Kernan breached his fiduciary duty, by working with someone adverse to my company, after representing DMA, my company.

Michale Kernan behaved in the manner of a bad actor, filing on behalf of his client to avoid responsibility for multiple years worth of digital damage at the hands of Ellis. Also, he conveniently ignored my company’s mutual release with Ellis, which plainly includes an unknown claims waiver.

Digital Marketing Advisors my model management company, has been in business for more than six years. Many of the models we work with have collaborated harmoniously for many consecutive years. Sharika Ellis was unable to conduct herself professionally for more than three months and was dismissed, paid a nominal settlement fee, and we signed a mutual release.

Likewise, Kernan, opposing counsel on this case was retained as an attorney by me and my company in 2021. This presents a clear, undeniable conflict of interest.

This textbook example of breach of fiduciary duty and it’s impact to our case, shall be elucidated herein.

In 2021, California attorney Stephen Michael Kernan was referred to my company Digital Marketing Advisors via a trusted business transactional attorney regarding a matter of our social media content which had been maliciously reported for community guidelines and copyright violations by unknown persons. All social media platforms contain content reporting mechanisms designed to allow honest feedback from social media users over sensitive topics like violent content, copyright content, etc. Sometimes those reporting mechanisms are gamed or used maliciously by unscrupulous individuals to torment their perceived enemies.

The case Kernan was originally retained to support in 2021 is remarkably similar to the Ellis case.

A former  model was sued in September 2020 (case #24STCV04340) over malicious content reporting, and eventually settled in October 2022 in favor of DMA. Not surprisingly, this was also a dramatic case, filled with famous beauties, treacherous attorneys, and involved my company for multiple consecutive years.

I hired Kernan on October 19th, 2021 and signed his legal services agreement that same day.

Kernan sought to levy his experience as an authority on the topic of intellectual property and social media to advise DMA regarding several unknown antagonists who were maliciously abusing community guidelines and copyright reporting to harass and have terminated DMA social media properties, over the course of several years (We call this our “anonymous defendants” case #21STCV36274). Using the investigative powers of the court and effective detective work, the malicious content reporting

parties were discovered to be a mentally deranged German national, and a Canadian individual and a former DMA model.

Kernan and I signed a legal services agreement regarding this matter, Kernan was paid a retainer fee, and did adequately perform legal services prior to his termination. Later, after his termination, Kernan sought to perform additional legal services for a fee and was turned away.

I am seeking the return of all legal fees paid to Kernan during the course of 2021. Any additional repercussions the State Bar of California may levy is entirely at their discretion.

UPDATE 16 May 2025 – S. Michael Kernan (California Bar #181747) remains in the hot seat, and likes to call me a “fraudster.” I found this email exchange humorous, as seeing as how Kernan used a January 2025 against me in court, I am posting our email exchange from May 2025, below. Although Kernan did work for me in 2021, he clearly doesn’t appreciate how far the insult “fraudster” misses the mark. I am one of the more authentic people you’re likely to me. 

—

Your false accusations are little more than confessions, Mike.

—

—

More shady characters: Thamsanqa “Michael” Mpofu