Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV02805, Date: 2025-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02805    Hearing Date: February 28, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Medygate Inc. v. Ardebili

CASE NO.:                24SMCV02805

MOTION:                  Motion to Quash Service of Summons

HEARING DATE:   2/28/2025

Legal Standard

“A defendant . . . 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).) A court lacks jurisdiction over a party if there has not been proper service of process. (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.) “When a motion to quash is properly brought, the burden of proof is placed upon the plaintiff to establish the facts of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Aquila, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 568.)

“[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.]” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.) “[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper” but only if it “complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.” (Id. at 1441-1442.)

Analysis

Defendant Mahn Ardebili moves to quash summons on the grounds that Plaintiff Medygate, Inc. did not properly serve the summons pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 415.10 and 415.20(a). Defendant states that Plaintiff merely left the summons and complaint in Defendant’s mailbox. (Ardebili Decl., ¶ 2.) However, Plaintiff filed two further proofs of service on February 4, 2025 and February 24, 2025, indicating personal service. Plaintiff thereby demonstrates personal jurisdiction over Defendant.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.