Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV19576, Date: 2025-04-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV19576 Hearing Date: April 30, 2025 Dept: 61
BLUE OCEANSIDE HOLDINGS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs WAVECREST ENTERPRISES LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.
Tentative
Defendant Raul Hinajosa’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED. Defendant is ordered to file a responsive pleading within 30 days.
Plaintiff to provide notice.
I. 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 Raul Hinajosa (Defendant) moves to quash the service of summons upon him on the grounds that he was not served with any documents, and that his girlfriend only found the summons and complaint posted on his door on a date he does not specify. (Hinajosa Decl. ¶¶ 1–4.)
The proof of service filed with this court does not indicate that Defendant was served by posting or substitute service, but was served personally on October 15, 2024, at an address on Wavecrest Avenue in Venice. In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff Blue Oceanside Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff) presents the declaration of its counsel, Alex Vo, who states that he arrived at the property on October 15, 2024 to oversee renovation efforts which Defendant had previously attempted to thwart, and anticipated serving Defendant on this occasion. (Vo Decl. ¶¶ 4–5.) Vo testifies that he twice knocked on Defendant’s door, that Defendant opened the door the second time, and affirmed that he was indeed Defendant Hinajosa before Vo presented him with the summons and complaint. (Vo Decl. ¶¶ 7–11.) Hinajosa refused to accept the documents and let them drop to the ground. He attempted to slam the door, but the documents caught in the doorway, so he kicked them away before slamming the door again. (Vo Decl. ¶¶ 9–11.)
Plaintiff has satisfied its burden to show that service was accomplished here. Defendant’s conclusory statement that he was not served is persuasively rebutted by the detailed declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel. Defendant’s motion makes no mention of the manner of service alleged in the proof of service filed with the court, while Plaintiff’s evidence corroborates that proof of service in great measure.
The motion to quash is therefore DENIED.