Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV05356, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24SMCV05356 Hearing Date: January 15, 2025 Dept: M
CASE NO.: 24SMCV05356
MOTION: Motion
to Quash Service of Summons
HEARING DATE: 1/15/25
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
Specially Appearing Defendant Brian
Ekkebus moves to quash service of summons. Defendant notes that the proof of
service on record shows that Plaintiff mailed summons to Defendant’s home, but did
not request a return receipt in violation of section 415.40. Plaintiff
therefore has the burden to show compliance with the statutory procedures for
service of process. Plaintiff has not opposed the instant motion.
Therefore, Plaintiff fails to meet his burden. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.