TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Joseph W. Sherman and Catherine Bampoky’s Motion to Squash [sic] Summons is DENIED.

The motions to quash, also said to be answers, are considered to be Defendants Joseph W. Sherman and Catherine Bampoky’s Answers in this action.

Clerk to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendants Joseph W. Sherman and Catherine Bampoky (“Defendants”) have filed two documents entitled “Motion to Squash [sic] Summons and Answer to Unlawful Detainer,” one said to be filed only by Defendant Sherman and the other said to be filed by both Defendants. Only one motion hearing reservation has been made, but the reservation is attached to both documents. Neither document includes proof of service of the motion upon Plaintiff John Oursland. However, in the interest of judicial efficiency, the Court addresses the merits of the purported motions, given that an opposition from Plaintiff would not change the Court’s ruling herein.

Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1), provides that a defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him. Defendants make no references to the methods of service of the summons and complaint in their motions, stating only that they learned of this action by mail. (Mots., p. 3, ll. 5-6.) However, Plaintiff has filed proof of service of Defendant Sherman by personal service on November 21, 2023, at 6 Seaview Terrace, Apartment I, in Santa Monica, and service of Defendant Bampoky by substituted service on Defendant Sherman on November 21, 2023, at 6 Seaview Terrace, Apartment I, in Santa Monica, with documents mailed thereafter, with a declaration of diligence provided indicating the process server made prior attempts to serve Defendant Bampoky personally. The proofs of service are executed by a registered California process server, which creates a rebuttable presumption of proper service pursuant to Evidence Code section 647. Defendants make no attempt to expand on their contention that they were only notified of this action by mail, and they provide no evidence that would allow the Court to conclude they were not served as stated in the proofs of service.

Further, Defendants cannot claim there is no personal jurisdiction over them where they made a general appearance in this action by filing these purported motions, which are said to be answers, followed by purported interrogatory answers on the docket and several documents identified as notice to attend the hearing on this date. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1014 [a defendant appears in an action when the defendant answers; In re Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1, 8 [“By generally appearing, a defendant relinquishes all objections based on lack of personal jurisdiction”].) For these reasons, Defendants Joseph W. Sherman and Catherine Bampoky’s Motion to Squash [sic] Summons is DENIED. The motions to quash, also said to be answers, are considered to be Defendants Joseph W. Sherman and Catherine Bampoky’s Answers in this action.