Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00646, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00646    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: O

HEARING DATE:                 Thursday, January 12, 2023

RE:                                          GABRIELA CABRERA vs ABU LASHIN BROTHERS INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION (22PSCV00646)

______________________________________________________________________________

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT ABU LASHIN BROTHERS INC

            Responding Party: Plaintiff

Tentative Ruling

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANT ABU LASHIN BROTHERS INC is DENIED.

Background

This is an ADA case.

On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for VIOLATIONS OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 51 et seq.

On August 3, 2022, Proof of Service (“POS”) was filed.

On August 11, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion.

On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Opposition.

To date, as of 01/05/2023 at 10:30 AM, no Reply has been received (due 01/05/23 by 11:59 PM).

Legal Standard

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10 subd., (a).)[1]

“In the absence of a voluntary submission to the authority of the court, compliance with the statutes governing service of process is essential to establish that court’s personal jurisdiction over a defendant. When a defendant challenges that jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4^th 1426.)

Discussion

The motion is denied for a simple reason: Defendant claims he was served on June 12, 2022. Not so. The proof of service clearly indicates that service was made on July 12, 2022. Accordingly, Defendant’s contention that it was not served may very well not be true, but it is because Plaintiff never served Defendant on that date.[2]

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is DENIED.