Location: California Is This Procedurally Correct If I Want To Take Landlord Back To Court?

Location: California

I’m taking my landlord back to court. She was able to evict me but based on fraud. I don’t have an attorney, I have chatGPT. Yes, yes, I know. But since being evicted my finances have only gotten more unstable. And chatGPT can write a motion much easier than I can. This is why I’m here. I’m not asking legal advice I’m asking for strategic sense advice. I’ve double checked the case law it’s used and it appears to be real, I just need to get my head straight on the way ChatGPT is doing this.

Here are facts of the case:

For context my apartment was a 344sq ft studio in California.

I have video of not being served.

Process server made up a person he served.

I was home at the time.

Amount on summons and complaint has 2.5 months of rent I’d already paid.

I have receipts, texts from building manager and a ledger to prove this. I told this information to 2 judges before my trial.

So when i overslept the day of my trial and I was given a default, they actually had no jurisdiction over me.

This is the only information ChatGPT wants to present in a motion to vacate. 473(d).

The purpose is just to get it vacated. This then leaves me with a new trial - I would hope.

At the new trial i would present my evidence of serious habitability issues during my tenancy. I have evidence from code enforcement, my requests that it be fixed and how many times I asked for help. Also the fact they changed the system after I left and for several others while I was there. Just not for me.

No functioning heat for 3 years. If I switched it on I could be charged $350 a month for electricity.

The first 3 day notice i was served was October 27 and they mentioned no outstanding rent.

The second one i was served January 9th I suddenly owed $4556. But this amount included rent from September, October and November. Months I’d already paid. But my first 3 day notice made no mention of this and when they sent a notice to LAHD on October 30th it said I owed $128.

I hope you can see the mismatched information.

When they issued a default judgement the building manager signed a document in lieu of live testimony saying i owed this $4556. Which is fraudulent because I have text messages from her thanking me for payment.

It’s shocking to me.

My concern is in CA they apparently turn a blind eye to being improperly served which is why I wanted the amount on the summons being incorrect (by quite a lot) so they can’t just fob me off.

I thought the rest of the facts about the habitability should be included too but ChatGPT says no. Is this correct?