Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 24STCV08415, Date: 2024-10-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08415    Hearing Date: October 7, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 10-7-24

Case #24STCV08415

Trial Date: Not Set

QUASH

MOVING PARTY: Specially Appearing Defendant, Ramiro Perez

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Carmen Solis

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Quash Service of the Summons

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On April 3, 2024, Plaintiff Carmen Solis filed a complaint against Zacatecas YNJ, LLC and Ramiro Perez for 1. Negligence; 2. Premises Liability 3. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, And Retention. 4. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress; 5. Assault And Battery.

RULING: Denied.

Specially Appearing Defendant Ramiro Perez moves to quash service of the summons and complaint on grounds of invalid service. Defendant contends service was improperly attempted on a person present on the premises, and said person was not an agent or authorized person to receive service. Plaintiff in opposition represents personal completion of service on August 18, 2024. The court electronic filing system shows no reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

A plaintiff has the initial burden to establish valid statutory service of a summons and complaint. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413; Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-40; Floveyor Internat. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 794.) “The return of a process server registered [under] Division 8 of the Business and Professions code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.” (Evid. Code, § 647.)

The instant motion to quash was filed on May 31, 2024. Perez contends the motion was improperly served on Soledad Rivera, a bartender employed on the premises, but in no way an authorized agent for service. No proof of service was on file prior to the filing of the motion.

The proof of service representing the August 18, 12024, service was filed on September 16, 2024. The proof of service is executed by a licensed process server. Plaintiff apparently completed new service following the filing of the motion. The court finds no dispute as to the proof of service executed after the instant motion to quash. The motion is DENIED.

Perez to file a responsive document within 10 days of the order.

Perez to give notice.