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

LEANDRO RUIZ, ET AL. VS ROMERO JORGE GONZALEZ

Defendant’s motion to quash service of the summons and complaint is granted. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: December 2, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

ALEKSANDR BIBLE VS ROBERT ALLEN FLOWERS

When a defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, the plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Coulston v. Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868.) “A court lacks jurisdiction over a party if there has not been proper service of process.” (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.)

  • Hearing

CLEMENS VS PRENTICE

Defendant moves to quash service of summons. The salient facts are as follows: On or about February of 2018, plaintiff and co-defendant Prentice formed a joint venture whereby they would operate OC Urban Design as both a physical business and a new online presence. A dispute arose, causing defendants to reportedly lock plaintiff out of the business and convert all the assets. The lawsuit was filed on 05/26/20.

  • Hearing

MARCUS LAUN VS JAMES PAKULIS

TransCanna’s motion to quash service of summons is denied.

  • Hearing

THE CHARLES COMPANY, INC., ET AL. VS BRYAN CAVE, LLP, ET AL.

On November 3, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to quash service of summons as untimely. On November 13, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On November 19, 2020, Defendants filed a reply. Legal Standard Pursuant to CCP section 418.10(a)(1), a defendant may move to quash service of summons on or before the last day to plead in response to the complaint or within such further time as the court may allow for good cause.

  • Hearing

LASHANNA GRANT, ET AL. VS SELF-UPGRADE VENTURES LLC, ET AL.

Motion for quash summons Date of Hearing: November 25, 2020 Trial Date: None set.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CR&R INCORPORATED, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ROBERT O'NEILL

Defendant Robert O’Neill’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint is DENIED. Defendant Robert O’Neill (“Defendant”) 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

ANGELA R. THOMAS V. BRIAN GILPIN, ET AL.

PAUL’s motion to quash service of summons is granted.

  • Hearing

SALVADOR MAGANA VS. SANTA PAULA MATERIALS INC

The Court, therefore, GRANTS, the motion to quash service of the Summons and Complaint as these two defendants. The Court enters its ORDER to that effect. Counsel for SL and EMCSL shall serve and file a notice of ruling and proposed order consistent with the above and in conformity with the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Court.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JOEY ROMO, ET AL. VS WENDY MILLER, ET AL.

DISCUSSION Defendant Michael Hennessey moves to quash service of the summons and compliant and dismiss the action for Plaintiffs’ failure to serve Hennessey within 2 years from the date of filing the action. The Court has reviewed its records and notes that Plaintiffs filed proofs of service concerning Defendant Wendy Miller and “Jim Miller – husband to Defendant” on August 29, 2018. However, there is no proof of service filed regarding Defendant Hennessey. A.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NOWLAND VS. VALENTE HAIR & COMPANY, INC.

Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons is off calendar at the moving parties’ request. On the court’s own motion, the Case Management Conference set for today, and plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Defendants’ Counsel of Record set for December 11, 2020, are continued to December 18, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., to be heard with defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

STEPHEN M. FELDMAN, INC., A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION VS ADELA GREGORY

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has been adjudicated a vexatious litigant and thus may not file any motions such as the instant motion to vacate default and quash service of summons. The statute’s plain language states that a person determined to be a vexatious litigant is prohibited from “filing any new litigation” without a prefiling order. (CCP § 391.7.)

  • Hearing

NOWLAND VS. VALENTE HAIR & COMPANY, INC.

Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons is off calendar at the moving parties’ request. On the court’s own motion, the Case Management Conference set for today, and plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Defendants’ Counsel of Record set for December 11, 2020, are continued to December 18, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., to be heard with defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

MIKLOS MEDVEI VS HOPE ENTERPRISES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Medvei now moves to quash service of summons as to her on the grounds she was never personally served with the FACC. Additionally, Mr. Medvei demurs to both causes of action of the FACC and moves to strike portions of the FACC. Hope LLC opposes each motion. The court will discuss each motion in turn.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GABRIEL ESTRADA VS JASON CHEN, ET AL.

MOTIONS TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS [CCP §418.10(a)] Date: 11/20/20 (8:30 AM) Case: Gabino Estrada v. Jason Chen et al. (20GDCV00446) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Jason Chen, Johnny Chen, and Landwin DMV, LLC’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED. Defendants Jason Chen, Johnny Chen, and Landwin DMV, LLC seek to quash service of summons. As an initial matter, moving defendants paid the first paper fee only for Landwin DMV, LLC, not Jason Chen or Johnny Chen.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CAMILLE AWAD VS THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, ET AL.

Motion to Quash 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).) A summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served. (CCP § 415.10.)

  • Hearing

FELICIA MCCARRON VS SISYPHIAN, LLC DBA XPOSED GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

On July 22, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons based on defective service. On October 5, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. ANALYSIS: I. Motion to Compel Arbitration A. Request for Judicial Notice In support of its motion, Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Complaint filed in this action. Defendant’s request for judicial notice is DENIED as superfluous. (Cal.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

AFFIRMA REHABILITATION, INC VS. PREMIER HEALTHCARE OF CONNERSVILLE

Motion to Quash Service of Summons Tentative Ruling: Specially Appearing Defendants Majestic Care of Connersville, LLC, Majestic Care of Fort Wayne, LLC, Majestic Care of North Vernon, LLC and Majestic Care of Sheridian, LLC’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Jurisdiction is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

FELICIA MCCARRON VS SISYPHIAN, LLC DBA XPOSED GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

On July 22, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons based on defective service. On October 5, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. ANALYSIS: I. Motion to Compel Arbitration A. Request for Judicial Notice In support of its motion, Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Complaint filed in this action. Defendant’s request for judicial notice is DENIED as superfluous. (Cal.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CORINA V. HACKNEY

Motion to Quash Service of Summons The Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint by Specially Appearing Defendant, Debra Hackney, both individually and as trustee of Debra L. Hackney Living Trust (“Defendant” or “Hackney”) is granted. As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s Opposition is untimely. However, Defendant has filed a timely Reply addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s Opposition. Thus, the Court exercises its discretion and will consider Plaintiff’s late filed Opposition.

  • Hearing

MASSA V. BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY AUTOMOTIVE, INC.

Motion to Quash Defendant Berkshire Hathaway Automotive, Inc.’s (“BHA”) motion to quash service of summons is denied. A nonresident defendant may not be called upon to defend in a foreign forum unless he or she has minimal contacts with that state to exercise power over that party. See Hensa v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235, 251. A nonresident defendant has a liberty interest in not being subject to the judgments of a forum with which he or she has established no meaningful minimum contacts.

  • Hearing

MARIO MIRANDA VS UBER, ET AL.

LEGAL STANDARD A defendant may serve and file a notice of motion to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over it. (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10, subd. (a).) California Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 provides the exclusive procedure for challenging personal jurisdiction at the outset. (Roy v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 337, 342.)

  • Hearing

DARIN JAMES VS BAUSCH & STROEBEL MACHINE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Attababy, LLC’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Cross-Complaint TENTATIVE RULING Attababy, LLC’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Cross-Complaint is denied, in part, and granted, in part. The Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Cross-Complaint is denied. However, the Court’s own motion to dismiss the Cross-Complaint based on forum non conveniens is granted.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PENG VS. LEE

Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint Moving Party: Specially Appearing Defendant Dong Li Responding Party: Plaintiff Hui Peng Ruling: Specially Appearing Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint is granted.

  • Hearing

FELIX AJEGBO, CO-TRUSTEES, JUDGMENT CREDITORS ADMINISTRATORS, BENEFICIARIES VS DR. DAVID Y. LEE, MD, ET AL.

Such Code of Civil Procedure section, however, allows a defendant to: (1) quash service of summons; or (2) dismiss or stay an action. Section 418.10 does not provide plaintiff a basis to obtain the relief requested in the Motion. Moreover, while Plaintiff also seeks relief under California Civil Code, Section 1788.61, such statute is inapplicable because it is concerned with motions to set aside default or default judgment. Neither default nor default judgment have been entered against Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 229     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.