Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV01825, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01825    Hearing Date: April 21, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT JEANNETTE ROSE DONOHUE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT is DENIED; a registered process server served Jeanette; thus, defendant had the evidentiary burden to overcome the presumption of valid service, not Plaintiff as Defendant suggests, and Defendant failed to show where she lives and/or where she was at the time and place of service. And the motion is untimely.

Background

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in July 2021.

On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff Richard Alfred Feole filed suit against Defendants Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC; Ean Holdings; and Jeanette Rose Donohue (“Jeanette”).

On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) and added Jan Donohue (“Jan”) as a defendant.

On May 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a POS indicating that Jan was served via personal service with the summons and complaint on 5/25/24 at 9:41 AM at 4626 CAPE MAY AVE. SAN DIEGO CA 92107.

On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed (an amended) Proof of Service (POS) indicating that Jeanette had been served with the summons and complaint on 6/8/24 at 3:45 PM at 4626 Cape May Avenue in the city of San Diego via personal service.

On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed (another) POS indicating that the summons and FAC had been served upon Jeanette at 34945 SHADOW WOOD DR. YUCAIPA CA 92399 on 9/27/24 at 9:43 AM via substituted service by serving co-occupant Zach Causey.

On November 7, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed Enterprise Rent-A-Car and Ean Holdings from the action.

On November 20, 2024, Jeanette filed the instant motion.

On November 22, 2024, Jan filed an answer.

On March 21, 2025, Jeanette filed a reply.

On April 1, 2025, the court continued the hearing on the motion to quash as no opposition was filed with eCourt.

On April 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion. (Defendant argues that the opposition was filed one day late. As policy prefers adjudication of matters on their merits and the opposition was not grossly untimely, the court exercises its discretion to consider the late-filed opposition.)

Discussion

Defendant Jeanette argues that the purported substitute service of Zach Causey on September 27, 2024 was not valid substitute service on Donohue. The opposition also focuses on this date. However, the POS filed on 8/21/24 indicates that Jeanette was personally served with the summons, complaint, and various other documents on 6/28/24.  

Focusing on the 9/27/24 service, the court agrees with Plaintiff that (1) the motion is untimely and (2) Defendant has not met her evidentiary burden.

a.     The Motion is Untimely

First, California Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 provides, in part: (a) A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. In turn, a party has 30 days to file a responsive pleading. Here, based on the service date of September 27, 2024, October 27, 2024 would be the last day to file the motion. However, the motion was filed on November 20, 2024, which means the motion is more than one month late. To the extent Defendant disagrees, her authority is inapposite. For example, she cites Moghaddam v. Bone (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 283 but that involved the time to file a notice of appeal and cites to Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503 which involved the timeliness of a dismissal. None of the cases involved a motion to quash a summons and complaint based upon purported defective compliance with statutory requirements.

b.     Defendant Has Not Met Her Burden

Second, even assuming the motion was timely, it would otherwise fail on the merits. “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.” (Demurrer p. 5, quoting Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) In turn, “a registered process server’s declaration of service establishes a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence of the facts stated in the declaration.” (Opp. p. 4, citing American Express Centurion v. Zara (2011) 199 CaLApp.4ts 383, 389; see also Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 457 [filing of proof of service that complies with the applicable statutory requirements creates a rebuttable presumption of proper service].)

Here, all that Jeanette states, in a circular/conclusory fashion, is that Zach Causey is not a member of Donohue’s household or family;[1] Jeanette does not currently reside at 34945 Shadow Wood Dr. Yucaipa, CA 92399; and that Jeanette has not lived there for ten (10) years. Jeanette does not state who Zach Causey is such that he would not be a member of the household or a family member nor does she state where she resides to evidence that she does not reside at the Yucaipa address. Thus, the motion is denied on the grounds that she cannot overcome the presumption of valid substitute service. With that, the court need not address Plaintiff’s other argument as to whether service substantially complied with statutory requirements.

All in all, while Jeanette repeatedly asserts that Plaintiff bears the burden, it is she as a registered process server effectuated service.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing—namely as Defendant did not offer sufficient, compelling, or otherwise dispositive evidence to show the 9/27/24 service was not statutorily compliant—the motion to quash is DENIED.