Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 20CHCV00081, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 20CHCV00081    Hearing Date: September 9, 2022    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 9/9/22

Case #20CHCV00081

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

Motion filed on 7/6/22.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Hector Jauregui

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Antonio Jauregui

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order quashing the service of the summons and complaint allegedly served on 6/8/22.

RULING: The motion is denied

This action arises out of a dispute regarding the ownership of real property located at 15710 Larkspur Street, Sylmar, California. 

On 6/15/22, Plaintiff Antonio Jauregui (Plaintiff) filed a proof of service indicating that the Summons, Second Amended Complaint and other documents were personally served on Defendant Hector Jauregui (Defendant) on 6/8/22 at 1:40 p.m. at Calle Mar Adriatico Esquina con Alamo #148 Playas de Rosarito, Baja California, Mexico.  On 7/6/22, Defendant filed and served the instant motion seeking an order quashing the foregoing service of the summons and complaint.  Plaintiff has opposed the motion.  (Plaintiff submitted for filing and served the  opposition to the motion on 8/26/22; however, the opposition was rejected because it listed an incorrect hearing date (the original hearing date for the motion (10/5/22) before it was advanced by the Court to 9/9/22 on 7/15/22).  Therefore, the Plaintiff filed the opposition on 9/6/22 with the correct hearing date.  Based on the foregoing, the opposition was considered by the Court.  CRC 3.1300(d)).  No reply to the motion has been filed.     

Defendant moves to quash the service of the summons and complaint on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over him because he was not properly served.  See CCP 418.10(a)(1).  Valid service may be accomplished by personally delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served.  CCP 415.10.  The motion argues that this court lacks jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant was not personally served with the summons and complaint as contended in the proof of service filed with the court on 6/15/22.  In support of the foregoing, Defendant has submitted a declaration from his attorney, Arno H. Keshishian, and individual, Jeff Keller.  The statements in attorney Keshishian’s declaration regarding Defendant telling him he was never served with the complaint is inadmissible hearsay.  (See Keshishian Decl. ¶¶7-9).   Mr. Keller states that someone purportedly attempted to serve the summons and complaint in this action on him on two occasions after being informed that he was not Defendant and that Defendant did not reside at the property and that the property was not Defendant’s principal place of business.  (See Keller Decl.).  However, it is possible that the statements in Mr. Keller’s declaration and the statements in the proof of service are both true (i.e., someone threw documents at Mr. Keller and Defendant was personally served at the same location as Mr. Keller admits that Defendant occasionally conducts maintenance on the property).  (Keller Decl. ¶6).  The motion is not accompanied by a declaration from Defendant stating that he was not personally served with the summons and complaint on 6/8/22 at 1:40 p.m. as set forth in the proof of service. 

Without any evidence or authority, the motion further argues that since Defendant is purportedly “a citizen of Mexico and his permanent residence is in Mexico;” “Plaintiff therefore incorrectly served Defendant Jauregui in California.”  (See Motion, p.7:18-19).

Based on the evidence before the Court, the Court finds that Defendant was properly served with the summons and complaint in this action.  (See Proof of Service filed 6/15/22; Garcia Ascencio Decl.).  Therefore, the motion is denied.