Superior Court of California¿ 

County of Los Angeles¿ 

Department 78¿ 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiffs Grover Henry Colin Nix IV, and Grover Henry Nix III, Trustee of Soames Lane Trust (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank (“Chase Bank”), Wilmington Trust, N.A., Structured Asset Mortgage Investment II Trust 2007-AR7, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Company for allegations arising from a wrongful foreclosure of residential real property commonly known as 2651 Aberdeen Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90027. 

On July 12, 2024, Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc., erroneously sued as “Structured Asset Mortgage Investment II Trust 2007-AR7, Inc.”, (“SAMI”) filed the instant motion to quash service of summons and service of the SAC for lack of personal jurisdiction.  

Plaintiffs oppose the motion, and SAMI filed a reply. 

 

II. REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Plaintiffs request the Court take judicial notice of the briefs (motion, separate statement, memorandum of points and authorities, declaration) filed in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23 STUD 04606. The request is granted only to the extent that the documents were filed, but not as to the truth of the statements contained therein. (Johnson & Johnson v. Sup. Ct. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [Judges cannot take judicial notice of hearsay statements asserted in court filings, but can take judicial notice of the existence of such documents.]; Williams v. Wraxall (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 120, 130 n. 7 [judges may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents, “but cannot take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions or court files, including pleadings, affidavits, testimony, or statements of fact.”].) 

SAMI submits 23 requests the Court take judicial notice of various instruments filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder and court documents are granted. (Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d),(h).) To the extent that SAMI requests judicial notice of the contents of motions filed in separate actions, the request is granted only to the extent that the documents exist for the same reasons as stated above regarding Plaintiffs’ requests. 

 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

“[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.)¿¿ 

When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving the facts requisite to an effective service. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) “The filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper. However, the presumption arises only if the proof of service complies with the applicable statutory requirements.” (Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 790.)¿ 

“ ‘On a motion to quash service of summons, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that all jurisdictional criteria are met. [Citations.] The burden must be met by competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documents; an unverified complaint may not be considered as supplying the necessary facts.’ [Citation.]” (Brown v. Garcia (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1198, 1203.)  

 

IV. DISCUSSION 

SAMI argues that “Structured Asset Mortgage Investment II Trust 2007-AR7, Inc.” (“SAMI Trust”) is a non-existent entity, and that Plaintiffs served the agent for SAMI claiming that SAMI and “SAMI Trust” are one in the same. SAMI argues that it is not a named defendant to this action, and that it has no association or relationship with SAMI Trust. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that SAMI Trust is a corporation owned by Chase Bank. Plaintiff asserts that SAMI Trust is a common law trust that exists, because it conducted the foreclosure sale on Plaintiff’s home and subsequently brought the unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends Sami Trust can be located in numerous Chase Bank corporate SEC filings, from 2012 to the present, and that the motion to quash should be denied. 

In reply, SAMI argues Plaintiff’s motion fails to provide any evidence to support proper service of process on SAMI Trust, or to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction. SAMI asserts that Plaintiff’s arguments concerning Chase’s counsel is not valid, and that Plaintiffs have not provided any admissible evidence to rebut SAMI’s contentions. 

Here, Plaintiffs filed on June 17, 2024 a proof of service reflecting that SAMI Trust was served on June 12, 2024 via personal service to “Robin Hutt-Banks, was authorized to accept service for CT Corporation System, Agent for Service of Process” at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. (Proof of Service, June 17, 2024.) The Court agrees that Plaintiffs have not met their burden that service was proper. Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of various documents related to the unlawful detainer action does not demonstrate that CT Corporation System was authorized to accept service on behalf of SAMI Trust. (Sheard v. Superior Court (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 207, 211 [“[W]here a defendant properly moves to quash service of summons the burden is on the plaintiff to prove facts requisite to the effective service.”].)¿¿¿ 

 

V. CONCLUSION 

SAMI’s motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED.  

  

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: August 9, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.