Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 24AHCV00012, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24AHCV00012    Hearing Date: March 22, 2024    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

George Beltran, an individual,

 

                                            Plaintiff,

vs.

 

Jaye Uribe,

 

                                            Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 24AHCV00012

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING  DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

 

Date: March 22, 2024

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

          I.        INTRODUCTION

          This appears to be an action for breach of contract, retaliation, and harassment. Though unclear as to the facts giving rise to these causes of action, Plaintiff George Beltran, appearing in pro per, seeks emotional distress damages, actual damages and general damages for losses already incurred. Beltran does identify the causes of action within his Judicial Council form complaint, so the specific claims he is making are somewhat unclear.  It appears that the facts giving rise to the complaint concern an alleged breach of a housing contract.

          Before the Court is Uribe’s motion to quash service of summons, filed on January 30, 2024.

          The motion to quash is itself unclear and fails to identify any legal basis.  It is therefore denied.

 

          II.       LEGAL STANDARD

          There are four methods for serving a summons within the State of California:  

(1) personal service – Code Civ. Proc. §415.10; 

(2) substitute service – Code Civ. Proc. §415.20; 

(3) mail service – Code Civ. Proc. §415.30; 

(4) service by publication – Code Civ. Proc. §415.50. 

Code Civ. Proc. §418.10(a)(1) provides that a defendant, on or before the last day to plead, may file a motion to quash service of the summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 

Code Civ. Proc. §415.20 

(a) [applies only to entity defendants] 

(b) If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, as specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing. 

 

III.     ANALYSIS

In this case, it appears Defendant Uribe is objecting to the proof of service filed January 8, 2024. Uribe urges “PLAINTIFF PROCESS SERVER MARK (CHECK) ON BEHALF OF 416.90 (UNAUTHORIZED PERSON) EXHIBIT 1 WHICH IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE SUMMONS EXHIBIT 2 IN WHICH IT PERTAINS TO NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED AND IS NOT COMPLETED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY ON (DATE): IS MISSING.” (Motion p. 1: 21-24.)

The proof of service appears to be in order, however.  It is signed by the person who served the papers, and indicates what was served, who was served, and on what date and time.

          To the extent that Uribe is arguing that he was not served, this is not supported in the motion to quash.   To the extent that Uribe is urging that the summons is incorrect because the date of personal service is not filled out, Uribe does not any cite case law or statute as to how this invalidates the proof of service.  

Consequently, the motion to quash service of summons is denied.[1]

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

III.     CONCLUSION AND ORDER

          Jaye Uribe’s motion to quash service of the summons and complaint is DENIED.  Uribe is ordered to file a responsive pleading within twenty (20) days.

          The Clerk is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

 

         

 

         

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

 

 


[1] The Court notes that Plaintiff Beltran apparently served a response to the motion to quash, which is not before the Court or in the court file. (See 2/14/24 Beltran Proof of Service Item 4.) The Court cannot consider these documents because they are not in the file.