Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV12582, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV12582    Hearing Date: January 15, 2025    Dept: 61

JIAN JUN ZHAO, AN INDIVIDUAL vs KARENA APPLE FENG, et al.

Tentative 

Defendant Karena Apple Feng’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Analysis:

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subd. (a)(1) states: “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.”

“‘[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction.” (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544.) 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.)

Defendant Karen Feng (Defendant) moves to quash the service of summons upon her on the grounds that she was not served. (Feng Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant contends that no papers have been served upon her, that that the process server, when making service upon her, “admitted to serving the wrong papers.” (Feng Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant contends that she was instead given series of papers related to a 2018 lawsuit against Plaintiff’s counsel, as well as a printout of the disciplinary record of Plaintiff’s counsel from the California State Bar. (Motion Exh. A.)

Defendant’s testimony is rebutted by the verified proof of service and declaration of the registered process server. The proof of personal service filed on September 19, 2024, states on June 2, 2024, at 4 p.m., registered process server Ramir Castor personally served the complaint and summons on June 2, 2024. Castor submits a declaration in opposition stating that he is “100% certain that I did not serve her the documents that she attached as Exhibit 1 to her motion.” (Castor Decl. ¶ 10.)

“The return of a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.” (Evid. Code § 647.) Defendant has not rebutted this presumption. The contrary assertion of Defendant Feng that she was served with irrelevant papers evidently designed to draw attention to a prior lawsuit against Plaintiff’s counsel and his disciplinary history, is highly implausible.

The motion is DENIED.