Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 24STCV20668, Date: 2025-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV20668    Hearing Date: January 27, 2025    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   January 27, 2025                                            

CASE NAME:           Don Barden v. Greg Backley

CASE NO.:                24STCV20668

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

MOVING PARTY:  Defendant Greg Backley

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Don Barden

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An Order quashing service of the summons.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On August 15, 2024, Plaintiff Don Barden (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant Greg Backley (Defendant) with one cause of action for Intentional Tort. According to the Complaint, Defendant willfully and maliciously canceled Plaintiff’s membership on July 22, 2024.

On August 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service of Summons indicating personal service on Defendant that occurred on August 16, 2024 at 10:35 a.m.

On September 12, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Quash.

On October 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Request to Take Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons Off Calendar.[1]

On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Case Management Conference Statement.

On December 30, 2024, Defendant filed a Case Management Conference Statement.

Replies were due on or before January 17, 2025. As of January 22, 2025, the court has not received a reply.

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: To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., (CCP) § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).)¿  

¿¿¿ 

“When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process ‘the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’” (Summers v. McClanahan¿(2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)¿¿ 

ANALYSIS:

Request for Judicial Notice

The court DENIES Defendant’s request for judicial notice. “A written trial court ruling in another case has no precedential value. ” (Budrow v. Dave & Buster’s of California (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 875, 885; Bolanos v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 744, 761; In re Molz (2015) 127 Cal.App.4th 836, 845; Santa Ana Medical Hospital Center v. Belshé (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 819, 831.)

Motion to Quash

Defendant contends that the court does not have personal jurisdiction over him because Plaintiff improperly served the summons and complaint (if Plaintiff served it at all). Plaintiff argues that Defendant was served via the Sheriff.

Here, Plaintiff’s Proofs of Service are problematic. First, the one presented by Plaintiff in the “opposition” was not filed with the court and does not indicate personal service on Defendant. Rather, it indicates personal service on someone authorized to accept service on behalf of Defendant. Defendant is an individual, not a corporation. Second, Defendant’s evidence that he was not personally served on August 16, 2024 is well taken. While the Evidence Code provides a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence for a registered process server, the court is unaware of authority providing the same for an unregistered process server. (See American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199¿Cal.App.4th 383, 390; Evid. Code § 647.) Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to quash.

CONCLUSION:

            For the foregoing reasons, the court decides the pending motion as follows:

1.      Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

Moving party is to give notice.

Order to Show Cause (OSC) on filing valid Proof of Service is scheduled for April 30, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff  is ordered to appear and explain why sanctions (including monetary sanctions up to $500) should not be imposed for failing to serve complaint pursuant to California Rule of Court, rule 3.110(b)&(f), within 60 days after the filing of the complaint. If valid proof of service has not been filed as to all defendants who have not responded, then no later than five days before the OSC hearing, Plaintiff is also to file a declaration explaining the failure including any and all efforts, including dates, to serve process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             January 27, 2025                     __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court