Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: LAM16K10602, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAM16K10602    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Lawrence Montgomery

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

(CCP § 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Lawrence Montgomery’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 NOT OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 NOT OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     NOT OK

OPPOSITION:          Filed on August 24, 2022.                                    [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of September 5, 2022.                       [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On August 23, 2016, Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company (Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Lawrence Montgomery (“Defendant”).

On November 16, 2016, Default Judgment was entered against Defendant.

On July 5, 2022, Defendant, in propria persona, filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons (“the Motion”).  Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 24, 2022.

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

            The Court notes the following:

            Defendant has made a Court Reservation for a Motion to Quash Service of Summons.  However, the title page of the Motion contains both titles “Motion to Quash Service of Summons” and “Motion to Quash Subpoena of Records.”  (Mot. pp. 1-2.)  The entire Motion is comprised of two sentences:

COMES NOW Lawrence Montgomery (NAME OF DEFENDANT) Defendant is in above- styled and 21 number only has 2% interest in the company. The plaintiff is requesting record from a business that does 22 not pertain to this case, and the other company owners do not wish to have the document released.

(Mot. p. 1.)  There are no factual statements or legal authority cited and the Court cannot discern what Defendant is seeking through the instant Motion.  See, e.g., California Rules of Court, Rules 3.112 et seq.

Furthermore, the Motion does not contain a Notice or Proof of Service.

            Plaintiff assumes that the Motion is seeking to quash subpoena of records and opposes it on several grounds.

            As the Court cannot discern the type of relief Defendant is seeking and on what basis, in addition to the lack of Notice of Motion and Proof of Service, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Lawrence Montgomery’s Motion is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.