Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV21983, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21983    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 15, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Moving Party: Specially Appearing Defendant Shlomo Rechnitz

Responding Party: Plaintiff Carolyn Parker

T/R:    SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH IS GRANTED.

            DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.[1]

“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.”  (CCP § 418.10(a)(1).)  “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.)

Specially Appearing Defendant Shlomo Rechnitz moves to quash service of summons on the ground that he was not properly served. Rechnitz declares that he did not reside or do business at the Alta Vista Blvd. address where Plaintiff purportedly effected substitute service. (Decl. Rechnitz ¶ 3.) In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff’s counsel and the process server have served Rechnitz at that address many times in the past. Plaintiff argues Rechnitz’s declaration is insufficient to show he did not reside at the subject address on the date of service.

            Rechnitz declares under penalty of perjury that he did not reside or do business at the Alta Vista address at the time of service. That he has been served there in the past does not establish otherwise.

            Rechnitz’s motion is GRANTED.