“Case No: BC284901 Proof-of-Service on Kopelson.”
That line is important because it ties together:
-
the Application for Entry of Default Judgment,
-
the received stamp (Feb 5, 2003), and
-
the procedural backbone showing Kopelson was formally in default before scrambling to undo it.
🔁 Repeat status
Yes — portions of this chunk repeat earlier material, but with an important function:
-
This is the culmination packet: fees declaration + proposed order + proof of service + default application.
-
In litigation terms, repetition here strengthens the record, because it shows the same facts asserted across multiple sworn filings.
This is not noise; it’s procedural reinforcement.
