What is a Motion to Quash Service of Summons?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Recent Rulings on Motion to Quash Service of Summons

CHAN WOO JANG VS YOUNG C OH, ET AL.

Specially Appearing Defendant Hoon Oh’s motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED. Specially Appearing Defendant Hoon Oh (“Defendant Oh”) moves to quash defective service. 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 to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. (CCP § 418.10(a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RYBACK VS. VALERO ENERGY CORP.

HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FILED BY VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION * TENTATIVE RULING: * Valero Energy Corporation’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons Based on Personal Jurisdiction is granted. Factual Background This is a wrongful death case arising from an October 2019 slip and fall incident at a Valero gas station. James Ryback, decedent, died of his injuries after he fell at the gas station located at 1091 Market Place, San Ramon, CA.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

JONATHAN ROJAS VS ORION PLASTICS CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Davis-Standard now moves to quash service of the Summons and Complaint. Concurrently, Orion moves for summary judgment. Rojas opposes both motions. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion to quash and denies the motion for summary judgment. Motion to Quash Motion Standard Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10 allows a defendant to move to quash the service of the Summons and Complaint for improper service.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WILLIAM CHARLES JONES JR VS THE REO GROUP INC ET AL

On October 15, 2019, the Court granted Oaktree Investments, Inc.’s motion to quash service of summons and deemed moot The Reo Group, Inc. and Rose Escrow’s demurrers. On October 21, 2019, the Court granted The Reo Group, Inc.’s ex parte application for an order dismissing action and for entry of judgment. The Court ordered the SAC filed by William Charles Jr. Jones on 06/29/2019 dismissed without prejudice. On November 12, 2019, the Court awarded judgment to the Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NGUYEN V. MAHAFFIE

On June 10, 2020, Defendant specially appeared and filed a motion to quash service of summons pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 on the grounds that the summons and complaint were not properly served on him and the Court lacks jurisdiction. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Defendant declares that on April 25, 2020, he received a copy of the request for entry of default in the mail. (Mahaffie Decl., ¶ 3; Exh. A.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

LUIS GOMEZ, ET AL. VS PATRICK CHAPMAN

Conclusion Moving Defendants’ motion to quash service of summons is denied as untimely. Assuming arguendo that Moving Defendants could substantiate good cause for this delay, the Court would (1) deny this motion as to Vlaze, Mint, Happy Endings, Dominic, Marc, Maria, and Nino and (2) set an evidentiary hearing to make a credibility determination concerning Injected Art’s and Smith’s claims of improper service. II.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB V. JEREMY PRESTON

Now before the Court is Defendant’s motion to quash service of the summons and complaint. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10, a summons may be served by personally delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served. Under certain circumstances, service is also authorized by delivering copies of the summons and complaint to someone other than defendant, and thereafter mailing additional copies to defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

TY NGUYEN, ET AL. VS AKIYAMA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (USA), A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Therefore, AIP/Goss Holdco, LLC’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is granted. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

WODYNSKI V. RICHEY

Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction by Specially Appearing Defendants VRBO Holdings, Inc., Homeaway.com Inc. (erroneously named as Homeaway, Inc.), and Homeaway Holdings, Inc., filed on 5-26-20 under ROA No. 41, is CONTINUED to 8-11-20 at 1:30 p.m.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

CHALLENGE DAIRY PRODUCTS ,INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ELIZABETH STOCKWELL , AN INDIVIDUAL

On February 25, 2020, the Court granted Defendant Kimble’s motion to quash service of the Summons and Complaint. On June 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed evidentiary objections to Defendant Stockwell’s reply declaration, which the Court hereby overrules. The Motion for Summary Judgment now comes for hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, A PUBLIC ENTERPRISE FUND AND INDEPENDENT AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS GOLDEN DROP INC., A SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Legal Standard A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground that service was invalid. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a).) A defendant may serve and file such a notice of motion to quash service of summons 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. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

GRACE DUNCAN VS CLIFFORD LAWRENCE ET AL

Here, the Moving Defendants have filed Motions to Quash Service of Summons. However, because this Court has entered default against the Moving Defendants, the Moving Defendants are “out of court” and “not entitled to take any further steps in the cause affecting plaintiff's right of action[.]” (Id. at 385-386.) Accordingly, the Defendants in this case are not entitled to file the instant pleading until the “default is set aside in a proper proceeding[.]” (Id. at 386.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS SEVEN SATELLITE PTY LTD, ET AL.

SUBJECT: Motion to Quash Service of Summons Moving Party: Specially-Appearing Defendants Seven Satellite Pty Limited dba Seven Network Australia, Inc. Resp. Party: Plaintiffs Susan Hannafoprd and Marquessa Margolin The motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: Plaintiffs’ two-page opposition, filed June 15, 2020, does not have any page numbers.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS SEVEN SATELLITE PTY LTD, ET AL.

SUBJECT: Motion to Quash Service of Summons Moving Party: Specially-Appearing Defendants Seven Satellite Pty Limited dba Seven Network Australia, Inc. Resp. Party: Plaintiffs Susan Hannafoprd and Marquessa Margolin The motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: Plaintiffs’ two-page opposition, filed June 15, 2020, does not have any page numbers.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS SEVEN SATELLITE PTY LTD, ET AL.

SUBJECT: Motion to Quash Service of Summons Moving Party: Specially-Appearing Defendants Seven Satellite Pty Limited dba Seven Network Australia, Inc. Resp. Party: Plaintiffs Susan Hannafoprd and Marquessa Margolin The motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: Plaintiffs’ two-page opposition, filed June 15, 2020, does not have any page numbers.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS SEVEN SATELLITE PTY LTD, ET AL.

SUBJECT: Motion to Quash Service of Summons Moving Party: Specially Appearing Defendants Seven Satellite Pty Limited dba Seven Network Australia, Inc. Resp. Party: None The motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS SEVEN SATELLITE PTY LTD, ET AL.

Specially-Appearing Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC VS. SAN RAMON

HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS & DISMISS ACTION FILED BY SAN RAMON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT * TENTATIVE RULING: * The hearing on respondent’s motion to quash is continued by the Court to July 23, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 33. Due to calendaring considerations, the hearing cannot be continued to an earlier date. Respondent has attempted to file reply papers.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

MICHAEL KHABUSHANI VS NAJILA K. BRENT

Request for Judicial Notice Brent Defendants request this court take judicial notice of the following: (1) April 10, 2017 Court Order and Notice of Ruling denying Michael Khabushani’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons in LASC Case No. LC103757 (Exh. I); (2) June 20, 2015 Court Order re: Ramin Zarrin-Ehteram’s Motion for Charging Order in LASC Case No. PC003379 (Exh. J); (3) Notice of Renewal of Judgment entered December 7, 2015 in LASC Case No. PC00379 (Exh.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BEACH SWINGS, LLC VS VAULT MEDIA GROUP LLC, ET AL.

Municipal Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033, 1036 holds that a motion to quash service of summons is the proper procedure to test whether a complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer. However, other recent cases have held that a demurrer is the appropriate method to challenge whether a complaint states a valid cause of action for unlawful detainer. See, Borsuck v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607, 610. Here, Defendant has filed and served a demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

JIANG'S INT'L TRADE CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS FREDY CHIN, ET AL.

On February 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Chin, Miscellanity and Does 1-60 for: Breach of Contract Breach of Duty of Loyalty Unfair Competition Unjust Enrichment Misappropriation of Property Conversion On July 24, 2019, the court granted Miscellanity’s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. A Case Management Conference is set for June 25, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Motion to Quash As the Court denied Defendant’s request to set aside the default entered against him, the request to quash service of summons is also DENIED. (Steven M. Garber & Associates v. Eskandarian (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 813, 824 [“The entry of a default cuts off the right to file pleadings and motions, and the right to notices and the service of pleadings”].)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PINNACLE ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC. VS BONANZA.SOLUTIONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

On May 13, 2020, Defendant filed this motion to quash service of the summons and complaint and to vacate the entry of default and default judgment against it. 1.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

GEORGE GEOFFREY LELAND VS, JAY BROWN, ET AL

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO QUASH — MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF [DEFT] SHURWEST, LLC RULING The Motion to Quash is DENIED, The Court finds that specific jurisdiction exists; defendant Shurwest, LLC has purposefully established contacts with California, plaintiffs claims arise out of those contacts, and the court's exercise of jurisdiction comports with "fair play and substantial justice."

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

CALNEV PARTNERS LLC VS. RESIGHINI RANCHERIA

The matter proceeded through litigation, including a motion to quash service of summons, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and significant discovery. The parties agreed to a Short Cause Trial, set to commence February 6, 2020. On the eve of trial, the parties reached a stipulation as to facts and exhibits such that trial witnesses would not be required and submitted the matter to this Court for judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 214     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.