Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2022-00052023-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 16, 2023

11/17/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion to Quash (Civil) 37-2022-00052023-CU-PA-CTL BUCKNAM VS MANSFIELD [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants James Alan Ingham and Elizabeth Ann Ingham's Motion to Quash Service of Plaintiff's Summons and Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff filed a very late opposition (on Defendants' reply deadline) without any explanation as to why the filing is so late. (ROA 45-46; C.C.P., § 1005(b).) In its discretion, the Court reviewed and considered the opposition. Failure to comply with all deadlines in the future may result in the Court not considering such filings as late filings are a burden to the other parties and the Court in light of its impacted calendar.

A party may move to quash service of summons on the grounds of the lack of a court's jurisdiction pursuant to C.C.P. section 418.10(a)(1). 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 facts requisite to an effective service. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) It is well-settled that strict compliance with the statutes governing service of process is not required. Rather, in deciding whether service was valid, the statutory provisions regarding service of process should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by the defendant. (Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 295, 313.) Substantial compliance is sufficient. (Ibid.) Evidence Code section 647 provides that a registered process server's declaration of service establishes a presumption that the facts stated in the declaration are true. (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390.) In this case, the registered process server declared under penalty of perjury that he effected substitute service on Defendants at a home in Borrego Springs. The process server first made six unsuccessful attempts, including a stake out. Cars registered to Defendant Elizabeth Ingram were seen at the home.

On August 2, 2023, at 6:42 p.m., the process server 'arrived to the location at the same time that a 'Jane Doe' pulled up driving a Dodge Ram with license plate number 7BP7572. She got out of the car and looked at me and started walking in the house. I quickly got out of my vehicle and approached her, but she was walking fast. Since this address has been confirmed as a good address for the subject via skip trace, I announced service as she was closing the door and I dropped served the documents at the door...I sub-served 'Jane Doe' (60's; Female; Caucasian; 120 +/- lbs; 5'7'; Brown/Gray Hair; Wearing Glasses), co-occupant, via drop service.' (Ex. 1; see also, C.C.P., § 415.20(b) (authorizing substitute service when a defendant cannot be personally served with reasonable diligence).) However, Defendant Elizabeth Ingham rebutted the presumption of proper service with evidence she Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3020640  37 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  BUCKNAM VS MANSFIELD [IMAGED]  37-2022-00052023-CU-PA-CTL was not so served. (Cf., Rodriguez v. Cho (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 742, 750 (finding a defendant's failure to declare he was not served did not rebut the presumption of proper service arising from the process server's declaration).) Defendant Elizabeth Ann Ingham declared she lived alone in August 2023, was in San Diego during the time of purported substitute service and caring for a sick friend, did not authorize anyone to live in her home and did not receive mail service addressed to her or Defendant James Ingham. The Dodge Ram vehicle was also not operational. (Declaration of Elizabeth Ann Ingham, at ¶¶ 3-4.) In reply, Plaintiff did not present any further evidence and instead relies on the process server's proof of service. As Defendant Elizabeth Ingham rebutted the presumption, the motion is granted as to Defendant Elizabeth Ingham. Plaintiff also does not provide any legal authority allowing the Court to allow for service by publication in light of Defendants' pending motion to quash.

The motion is also granted as to Defendant James Alan Ingham who declared he permanently resides and lived in Australia during the time of purported substitute service and that his mother, Defendant Elizabeth Ann Ingham, was not authorized to accept service on his behalf. Plaintiff acknowledges he does not have any further evidence to oppose the motion. (Opp., at p. 9:2-3.) Although Plaintiff requests the Court grant the motion without prejudice in order to allow Plaintiff time to comply with the Hague Service Convention, no legal authority is provided allowing the Court to do so in light of Defendants' pending motion to quash.

Thus, the motion is GRANTED.

Service of the Complaint and Summons on August 2, 2023, on Defendants James Alan Ingham and Elizabeth Ann Ingham is quashed.

The Clerk of the Court is ordered to serve written notice of this ruling.

The parties are reminded to comply with Department 70's Policies and Procedures and to provide courtesy copies of all motion paperwork.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3020640  37