Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV35143, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35143    Hearing Date: April 13, 2023    Dept: 39

Miguel Valencia, Jr., et al. v. Matrix Holdings, LLC, et al.

Case No. 22STCV35143

Motion to Quash

            Plaintiffs assert violations of the Uniform Fraudulent Transactions Act, Civil Code sections 3439.04(a)(1) and (2) in the operative first amended complaint against Matrix Holdings, LLC (“Matrix”); Armando Mendoza (“Mendoza”); Cosstal Holdings, LLC (“Coastal”); and ACJJ Investments, LLC (“ACJJ”).  Defendants move to quash service of the summons and first amended complaint, arguing that substituted service was invalid.  After the motion was filed, Plaintiffs dismissed all causes of action against Coastal and ACJJ.  Plaintiffs also personally served Matrix.  The motion is denied as moot with respect to these defendants.

Plaintiffs served Mendoza via substituted service on December 7, 2022, by leaving a copy of the summons and first amended complaint with Nathan Esqueda, purportedly his stepson.  A plaintiff may serve a  defendant “by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address . . . , in the presence of a competent member of the household . . . , at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)  As Plaintiffs effectuated service via a registered process server, Plaintiffs’ service is entitled to a presumption of validity.  Defendants are therefore “required to produce evidence that [they were] not served.”  (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390.)  Mendoza relies upon his own declaration which states that he was served at his former residence, where his former fiancée and her son, Nathan Esqueda, reside.  (Declaration of Armando Mendoza, ¶ 3.)  He states that he has not resided at that address since on or about November 1, 2022, after he moved out after breaking up with his fiancée.  (Id., ¶ 4.)

Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion or advance any evidence to dispute Mendoza’s declaration.  Therefore, the Court orders as follows:

1.         Armando Mendoza’s motion to quash service of the summons and first amended complaint is granted.

2.         Defendants’ motion to quash is denied as moot in all other respects.

3.         Counsel for Armando Mendoza shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.