Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV04044, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV04044    Hearing Date: February 27, 2025    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 February 27, 2025 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                      24TRCV04044

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                           Alhassan B. Macauley, Trustee of the Alhassan B. Macauley Revocable Trust v. Junius Johnson, et al.

¿¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant, Junius Johnson

¿¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff, Alhassan B. Macauley (no opposition filed)

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                       Not Set.

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Process

Tentative Rulings:                     (1) GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

On December 3, 2024, Plaintiff, Alhassan B. Macauley, trustee of the Alhassan B. Macauley Revocable Trust (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant, Junius Johnson, and DOES 1 through 10. The complaint alleges one cause of action for forcible entry and detainer.

Now, Defendant, Junius Johnson (“Defendant”) filed a Motion to Quash Service of Process.  

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On January 10, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Quash. On January 1, 2024, Defendant filed an Amended Notice of Continuance of Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Process. To date, no opposition has been filed.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿ 

A.    Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1 grants the trial court authority to quash a subpoena when necessary. Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1 provides: “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

B.    Discussion

Defendant files this Motion to Quash on the grounds that he argues no personal service was made on him. Defendant contends that he was never served nor subserved with a summons and complaint. Although Defendant concedes that he is the owner of the property at 2401 West 102nd St., Inglewood, CA, that is not his principal residence or place of abode. Defendant has included the declaration of Ramona Bowser (“Bowser Decl.”), the daughter of Defendant, Junius Johnson. Bowser declares that the proof of service of the summons and complaint indicates he was personally served on December 3, 2024 at 5:44 p.m., at 2401 West 102nd Street, Inglewood, California 90303. (Bowser Decl., ¶ 2.) Although, Bowser too concedes that her father, the Defendant, owns the property at that address, she declares that he has been a resident of Foremost Retirement Resort (a locked senior living facility) in Hesperia, CA continuously since November 13, 2024 until December 7, 2024. (Bowser Decl., ¶ 2.) Moreover, Bowser states on December 8, 2024 Defendant was taken by medical transport to the VA Hospital in Loma Linda, California and remained a patient in the ICU unit there until December 23, 2024, when he was transferred to Vista Real Post Acute, a senior living facility, where he remains today. (Bowser Decl., ¶ 2.)

As such, Bowser argues that Defendant, Junius Johnson was never personally served on December 3, 2024 at 2401 West 102nd Street, Inglewood, California 90303, as stated in the proof of service. (Bowser Decl., ¶ 3.) Bowser continues that neither she nor her father were aware that this suit was filed until about December 30, 2024. (Bowser Decl., ¶ 4.) Bowser also confirms that since her father entered the senior care facility, she took steps to have all of his mail forwarded to her home address in Texas. (Bowser Decl., ¶ 4.) On December 30, 2024, Bowser contends she received a forwarded notice from the court that an unlawful detainer complaint was filed and at that time she notified her counsel of the filing. (Bowser Decl., ¶ 4.)

Based on the above, Plaintiff has requested that this Court quash the service of summons and complaint and reject the Plaintiff’s proof of personal service on Junius Johnson.

The Court finds that based on Plaintiff’s moving papers, and the fact that no opposition brief has been filed, this Court GRANTS the Motion to Quash.

III. CONCLUSION¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿¿ 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Quash is GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice.