Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV03854, Date: 2025-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV03854    Hearing Date: June 5, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 6/5/25

Case #24CHCV03854

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Motion filed on 11/25/24.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Joel Covarrubias (specially appearing)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Ana Isabel Romero Guzman

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order quashing service of summons.

RULING: The motion is placed off calendar.

On 10/22/24, Plaintiff Ana Isabel Romero Guzman (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Joel Covarrubias (Defendant) for partition by sale of real property located at 12588 Mineola Street in Pacoima, California, accounting and common counts.  On 11/25/24, Defendant, specially appearing, filed the instant motion seeking an order quashing service of summons.

The proof of service attached to the motion is defective.  The majority of the language in the proof of service indicates service was made electronically; however, the proof of service also indicates that the documents were mailed to Plaintiff’s attorney.  To the extent the proof of service is intended to establish that the motion was electronically it does not comply with all of the requirements of CCP 1013b (i.e., the proof of service does not set forth the email address for Plaintiff’s counsel as required by CCP 1013b(b)(3).  To the extent the proof of service is intended to establish service of the motion by mail, it fails to comply with all of the requirements set forth in CCP 1013a (i.e., exact date and place of deposit, deposited in the mail with postage prepaid, etc.).    

Despite the defective proof of service for the motion, it appears that Plaintiff’s counsel received notice of same as a late opposition to the motion was filed on 6/3/25.  See CCP 1005(b).  The late opposition indicates that Defendant was personally served with the summons and complaint on 3/1/25 and Defendant’s counsel was informed of such but did not take the motion off calendar.  The late opposition is not supported by a memorandum of points and authorities or a declaration.  Additionally, no proof of service for the opposition has been filed.  As such, Plaintiff’s unsupported request for sanctions in the opposition is denied.  A proof of service for the 3/1/25 service of the summons and complaint was also filed on 6/3/25.  

At the time the instant motion was filed on 11/25/24 and purportedly served on an unspecified date in November of 2024, there was no service to quash as no proof of service had been filed.  The proof of service filed on 6/3/25 indicates that Defendant was personally served with the summons and complaint on 3/1/25.  If Defendant wishes to challenge such service, he will need to file and serve a motion which specifically addresses the 3/1/25 service. 

The Court further notes that Defendant’s declaration submitted in support of the motion is not executed under penalty of perjury as required by CCP 2015.5.