Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV36131, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36131    Hearing Date: February 21, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Strike Service and Answer on Defendant Lovepreet Singh filed by Plaintiff Noheli Jimenez.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff Noheli Jimenez (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against Lovepreet Singh for Motor Vehicle Negligence cause of action arising out of an automobile accident occurring on October 16, 2019.

Lovepreet Singh filed an answer on November 28, 2023.

On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to strike proof of service on Lovepreet Singh as well as his answer. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

“The proper procedure for attacking the validity of a summons which has been served upon a person who is not a party to an action is by a motion to quash the service thereof.” (Kline v. Beauchamp (1938) 29 Cal.App.2d 340, 341.)

“A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (CCP § 418.10(a)(1).)

Discussion

Plaintiff contends that the Lovepreet Singh was served and answered her complaint is not the same Lovepreet Singh as intended in her complaint. As such, Plaintiff requests service on the answering Lovepreet Singh be quashed.

Plaintiff believes Lovepreet Singh is a different Defendant in that the attached driver’s license is different than the one in the CHP officer’s report. (Feldman Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s counsel reached out to the answer Lovepreet Singh’s counsel regarding dismissing him, but has not received a response. (Id., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff believes the correct Lovepreet Singh has now been correctly served. (Id., ¶ 9; see also Exhibit B.)

Here, Plaintiff has shown through sufficient evidence that the person incorrectly served is not a party to the action.  Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, and quashes the service on Lovepreet Singh, and strikes the answer filed on November 28, 2023.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

The Court ORDERS service on Lovepreet Singh quashed.  The Court also STRIKES the answer filed by Lovepreet Singh on November 28, 2023.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.