Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This case arises from an alleged assault.  Plaintiff Abdel Aziz Alaoui alleges he was attacked by a security guard hired by Defendants.  The security guard allegedly lifted Plaintiff from his chair and purportedly slammed him to the ground, without any provocation.   

Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing that Defendant Wally’s Wine & Spirits was served by personal service on September 10, 2024 and Defendant Wally’s Beverly Hills was served by substitute service on September 10, 2024.  Neither responded to the Complaint.   

Plaintiff requested the entry of default against both defendants, which the Clerk entered on December 17, 2024.  The parties then stipulated to set aside the default judgment.  In the stipulation, Defendants agreed to file answers to the Complaint.   

This hearing is on specially appearing defendants Wally’s Beverly Hills and Wally’s Wine & Spirits’ (“Moving Defendants”) motion to quash service of process.  Moving Defendants claim they do not exist and therefore cannot be served or sued.   

DISCUSSION 

The Court addresses the threshold issue of whether Moving Defendants entered a general appearance and therefore waived their right to move to quash service of summons by entering into the stipulation.  “A general appearance by a party is equivalent to personal service of summons on such party.” (Dial 800 v. Fesbinder (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 32, 52, 12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 711.)  “A general appearance occurs when the defendant takes part in the action or in some manner recognizes the authority of the court to proceed.” (Id. at 52.)  A party who enters into a stipulation has made a general appearance. (See Pfeiffer v. Ash (1949) 92 Cal.App.2d 102, 104-105.)  Here, Moving Defendants entered into a stipulation.  That would normally end the question, and the Court would deny the motion to quash. 

However, courts have held that a non-entity cannot make a general appearance.  (Omega Video v. Superior Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 470, 477.)  Accordingly, because Moving Defendants are non-entities, their stipulation to set aside default and to file an answer, cannot be deemed a general appearance.   

Additionally, a non-entity cannot be served.  (Id. (“A nonexistent entity may not be effectively served with summons as a named defendant and may not be subjected to jurisdiction of a court by an entry of a general appearance on its behalf.”).)  Therefore, the service of summons on Defendants is ineffective and must be quashed.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to quash service of summons. 

 

DATED:  May 29, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court