Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCP00120, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22LBCP00120    Hearing Date: January 10, 2023    Dept: S27

  1. Background Facts

Petitioner, Henry Chapman initiated this action by filing a petition to confirm arbitration award against Respondents, Federal Home Loans Corp., Evangelina Salas, Don Salas, S.B.S. Trust Deed Network, Collen Irby, Mitchell Willett, Robert Hoiseth, and Glenda Hoiseth. 

 

On 6/13/22, Petitioner filed a proof of personal service.  The POS indicates Edward Pineda, a registered California process server, served various documents on Respondents, including Robert and Glenda Hoiseth, by personal service on the Hoiseths “c/o FHLC, 3914 Murphy Canyon Road, #A250, San Diego, CA 92123.” 

 

  1. Motion to Quash

The Hoiseths move to quash service of the summons, petition, and related documents on them, correctly noting that personal service via a “care of” is not permitted under the Code of Civil Procedure.  Any opposition to the motion was due on or before 12/27/22.  The Court has not received opposition to the motion.  When a defendant files a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that service of the summons and complaint was proper.  Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.  In light of the lack of opposition, the motion is granted.

 

  1. Motion to Dismiss

Defendants also seek to have the case dismissed pursuant to CCP §1287.2, which provides, “The court shall dismiss the proceeding under this chapter as to any person named as a respondent if the court determines that such person was not bound by the arbitration award and was not a party to the arbitration.” 

 

Defendants show that none of the materials submitted with the petition show that they were parties to any arbitration agreement or participated in any arbitration proceedings.  Notably, they also show that Plaintiff submitted the same case in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, where the Honorable Barbara Scheper dismissed the case. 

 

In the absence of opposition, the motion to dismiss is also granted. 

 

  1. Case Management Conference

The parties are reminded there is a CMC on calendar concurrently with the hearing on the motion to quash.  The Court asks the parties to make arrangements to appear remotely at the CMC and hearing on the motion.