Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV01594, Date: 2024-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01594    Hearing Date: June 11, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Stroden v. Efraim, Case No. 24SMCV01594

Hearing Date: June 11, 2024

Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Plaintiff Stroden brings an unlawful detainer action against defendant Efraim, alleging Efraim forcibly entered Stroden’s property in violation of CCP § 1159. Defendant Efraim moves to quash service, arguing she was never personally served, nor was substituted service accomplished. The motion is unopposed.

“‘Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.’ [Citation.]” 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. 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.

“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 Plaintiffs to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’” Summers v. McClanahan¿(2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.

Efraim states that as of May 10, 2024, she has not been personally served a copy of the summons and complaint, nor has she received the summons and complaint by mail. Def. Decl. ¶¶ 2,4. Efraim swears that no one in her household has been handed any documents related to the suit, and she only became aware of the action upon receipt of a notice of unlawful detainer through the mail. Id. ¶¶ 3, 5. Efraim declares she has been available to receive personal service and has not taken any steps to hide or evade service. Id. ¶ 6.

No opposition has been filed. Stroden has not filed any proof of service indicating that service has been properly made. GRANTED.