Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01090, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01090, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01090 Hearing Date: December 13, 2023 Dept: C

Eureka, LLC v. zhongtian International

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01090

HEARING: 12/13/23 @ 9:30 AM

Defendant Yong Wang’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Yong Wang (Defendant) moves to quash service of summons on the grounds that he was improperly served.

Background

This is a Breach of Contract action filed by Plaintiff Eureka LLC against Defendants Zhongtian International Trade Company, Ye Zhang, and Yong Wang for $66,676.62.

Legal Standard

“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 serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (CCP § 418.10(a).)

“No default may be entered against the defendant before expiration of his or her time to plead, and no motion under this section, or under Section 473 or 473.5 when joined with a motion under this section, or application to the court or stipulation of the parties for an extension of the time to plead, shall be deemed a general appearance by the defendant.” (CCP § 418.10(d).)

Discussion

Here, Defendant argues that he was not properly served with the Summons and Complaint so as to have proper notice of this lawsuit. This Court previously set aside default entered against Defendant because he declared that he did not receive actual notice of the complaint. Defendant asserted he was served by substitute service at 15 Cabrito, San Clemente, CA, but has lived at 19 Calle Saltamontes, San Clemente, CA since 2019.

However, the Court may obtain personal jurisdiction over a party by that party making a general appearance in the action. (Mansour v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1750, 1756-1757.) “A general appearance occurs where a party, either directly or through counsel, participates in an action in some manner which recognizes the authority of the court to proceed.” (Mansour v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1750, 1756.) Here, like in Mansour, Defendant has made a general appearance by submitting a case management conference statement and participating in the conference. Defendant’s other appearances were made through a special appearance so that he could challenge jurisdiction and be served formally with the Summons and Complaint. However, the Court sees no evidence that Defendant limited his participation in the case management conferences to a special appearance. Further, Defendant filed a statement prior to the February 14, 2023 conference. Thus, this Court has obtained personal jurisdiction through a general appearance by Defendant. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Quash is denied.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED. Defendant is to file his answer within 20 days of this Order.