Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This is a breach of contract and fraud case.  Plaintiff Erin Haskell alleges she was duped into making $485,000 in investments and loans to Defendants.   

The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) fraud and intentional misrepresentation, (2) breach of contract, (3) conspiracy, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, (5) negligent misrepresentation, and (6) wire fraud. 

This hearing is on Specially Appearing Defendant Floyd Joy Mayweather Jr.’s motion to quash service of summons.  Mayweather argues he was not properly served.  There was no timely opposition filed.  Plaintiff filed a late opposition on October 28, 2024 without leave, or a request for leave, to file a late opposition.  The late opposition will not be considered.   

DISCUSSION 

“Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.”¿ (AO Alfa-Bank v. Yakovlev (2018) 21¿Cal.App.5th 189, 202.)¿ “To establish personal jurisdiction, compliance with statutory procedures for service of process is essential.”¿ (Kremerman v. White (2021). 71 Cal.App.5th 358, 371.)¿  

But the statutory requirements are to be liberally construed to uphold jurisdiction, rather than defeat it.  (Pasadena Medi-Center Assocs. v. Sup.Ct. (Houts)¿(1973) 9 Cal.3d 773, 778 (“The provisions of this chapter should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by the defendant,¿and in the last analysis the question of service should be resolved by considering each situation from a practical standpoint.”)  

Defendant’s knowledge of the action does not dispense with statutory requirements for service of summons.¿ (Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1457, 1466.)  However, as long as the defendant receives actual notice of the lawsuit,¿substantial compliance¿with the Code provisions governing service of summons will generally be held sufficient.  (Summers v. McClanahan¿(2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 410-411 (“It is well settled that strict compliance with 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.”).) 

“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 move “to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her” that results from lack of proper service.¿ (Code of Civ. Proc. §418.10(a)(1).¿ A defendant has 30 days after the service of the summons to file a responsive pleading.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §412.20(a)(3).)¿¿ 

“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, 140 Cal.App.4th at 413.)¿      

DISCUSSION 

At the time motion was filed, no proof as service on Mayweather had been filed.  Thus, Mayweather’s motion to quash service of summons was premature.  Since then, on October 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service by substitute service.    

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES without prejudice Mayweather’s motion to quash service of summons.   

 

DATED:  November 5, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court