Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 25PSCV00406, Date: 2025-05-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25PSCV00406 Hearing Date: May 8, 2025 Dept: G
Defendant Alexis Kylie Estrada Frost’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint
Respondent: NO OPPOSITION
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant Alexis Kylie Estrada Frost’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
This case involves a motor vehicle accident. On September 14, “2025,” defendant Alexis Kylie Estrada Frost (Defendant) was driving westbound on Baseline Rd. in Azusa when she collided with the vehicle of plaintiff Sugey Piedra (Plaintiff). On February 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1 through 10, alleging (1) motor vehicle negligence.
On February 18, 2025, Plaintiff’s process personally allegedly served Defendant in Azusa.
On March 6, 2025, Defendant filed the present motion.
On April 9, 2025, Defendant filed an answer.
A hearing on this motion is set for May 8, 2025.
MOTION TO QUASH
Defendant moves to quash Plaintiff’s service of summons and complaint on the grounds that the service was improper. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.
Legal Standard
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, “[a] defendant, on or before the last day of [their] time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion . . . [t]o quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over [them].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) “When a defendant argues that service of summons did not bring [them] within the trial court’s jurisdiction, the plaintiff has ‘the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.’” (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 387.) A process server’s proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that service was valid, but only if the service declaration follows the statutory requirements regarding such proofs. (Id. at p. 390; Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.)
“[A] party who moves to quash may—concurrently with or after filing a motion to quash—participate in the litigation and ‘no act’ by the party constitutes an appearance unless and until the proceedings on the motion to quash are finally decided adversely to that party.” (ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 204.)
Discussion
The proof of service in this matter indicates that the process servicer effectuated service on February 18, 2025. (02/18/2025 PoS, ¶ 5(a).) The process server’s affidavit states that they handed the summons and complaint to Defendant, described as a “black-haired Hispanic female … 18-25 years of age, 5’-5’4” tall and weighing 120-140 lbs.” (02/18/2025 PoS, ¶ 5(a).) The address of service, Defendant’s residence, is 1234 N Pasadena Ave, Azusa, CA 91702. (02/18/2025 PoS, ¶ 4.)
In Defendant’s motion to quash, Defendant provides a declaration asserting that Defendant has not been personally served with the summons and complaint in this action, contradicting Plaintiff’s proof of service. (Frost Decl., ¶ 1.) Instead, Defendant states that the process server served a copy of the summons and complaint on Pablo Huerta, Defendant’s family friend, while Defendant was away from home. (Frost Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Exh. A.) Although Huerta was present inside Defendant’s home at the time of service, Huerta does not reside at Defendant’s home. (Frost Decl., ¶ 1.) Defendant provides still images from Defendant’s ring camera, showing a man in a white and brown hoodie handing what appears to be court documents to Huerta. (Frost Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Exh. A.) The court is not in receipt of any opposition from Plaintiff.
The court acknowledges that the affidavit of Plaintiff’s process server creates a rebuttable presumption that service was valid. (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199¿Cal.App.4th 383, 390 [internal citation omitted]; Evid. Code § 647.) However, the court also finds that Defendant provides adequate evidence to rebut this presumption. Defendant submits sworn testimony and photographic evidence that she did not receive effective service.
Although Defendant suggests that Defendant had actual notice, actual notice cannot cure defective service. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 415; see also Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808 [“A party cannot be properly joined unless served with the summons and complaint; notice does not substitute for proper service. Until statutory requirements are satisfied, the court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant.”].) Thus, because Plaintiff’s process server did not serve Defendant as alleged pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10, Plaintiff did not properly serve Defendant.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to quash Plaintiff’s service of the summons and complaint is GRANTED.