Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCP03057, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP03057    Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: 61

Defendant Shaohai Guo’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED.

I.                   MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE 

A defendant may serve and file a motion to quash service of summons on the grounds of a lack of jurisdiction over him or her. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10 subd. (a)(1).) A plaintiff opposing a motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction “has the initial burden to demonstrate facts establishing a basis for personal jurisdiction.” (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1167.) If satisfied, the burden then shifts to defendant to show that exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Id.)

Mere notice of litigation does not confer personal jurisdiction absent substantial compliance with the statutory requirements for service of summons. (MJS Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 555, 557.) While courts are not required to accept self-serving evidence — such as declarations that one was not served — submitted to support a motion to quash, facial defects of the proof of service will rebut its presumption of proper service. (American Exp. Centurion Bank, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 390.) The burden is on a plaintiff to prove facts showing that service was effective. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)

Shaohai Guo moves to quash service of summons made upon him, as stated in a proof of service filed on June 27, 2022. That proof indicates that service was made upon Defendant Sino American Reunion by virtue of personal service upon Guo in Wilmette, Illinois, on May 18, 2022. Guo argues that this service was defective, as he was never an agent of Sino American Reunion, and he has no contacts with California.

The motion is defective, as Shaohai Guo has not been served and is not named as a defendant in this case. There has been no service upon him personally that this court may quash, and no attempt to exercise jurisdiction over his person.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.