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

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MICHAEL JAMES PORTEOUS

Accordingly, the hearing on Defendant Michael James Porteous’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is also CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 22, 2020 AT _____ IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MICHAEL MOLAYEM VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendants’ motions to quash service of the summons and complaint are granted. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: September 22, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

RANCHO NUEVO VS. SANTA ROSA

In the absence of any evidence indicating that the Court has general or specific jurisdiction over Santa Rosa, the Court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Santa Rosa, and grants its motion quash service of the Summons and Complaint. The Court advises Plaintiff Rancho Nuevo Harvesting, Inc. and its representative Jessica Manriquez that a corporation cannot appear or prosecute any action in court unless it is represented by a licensed attorney. (See Gamet v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

HARVEY KREITENBERG, ET AL. VS MICHAEL ROSENBERG, ET AL.

SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Quash Service of Summons Moving Party: Defendant Ahavath Israel Congregation Resp. Party: Plaintiffs Harvey Kreitenberg, Eli Krich, Yoseph Chazanow, Eli Chitrik, and Berel Wilhelm SUBJECT: (2) Motion to Quash Service of Summons Moving Party: Michael Rosenberg, Jose Herrera, and Ministerios Christianos Guerreros de Jehova Resp.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ZULA TUCKER LIVING TRUST VS STANLEY D. BOWMAN; ET AL

On July 8, 2020, the court denied cross-defendant Fred Tucker’s motion to quash service of the summons and cross-complaint.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

JANINE M YODER VS MWANZO M MALLARD, ET AL.

Since the Court finds that Defendant has not been served, the motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED. Plaintiff has also failed to properly serve James River Insurance. Code of Civil Procedure section 415.40 allows service on a non-resident by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid, requiring a return receipt.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

CRAIG ROSS, ET AL. VS SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, ET AL.

Analysis On August 17, 2020, Specially Appearing Defendant Richard Estalella filed a motion to quash service of summons of the complaint arguing that the Court does not have general or specific jurisdiction as to Estalella. Even though Estalella filed this motion, the burden of proof is on Plaintiff to demonstrate that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Estalella.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

CHRISTOPHER J YUHAS, ET AL. VS DISCOUNT NUTRITION LLC, ET AL.

.: 20STCV16807 Hearing Date: September 16, 2020 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: specially appearing defendant OC DISCOUNT NUTRITION COSTA MESA, LLC’S motion to quash service of summons Specially Appearing Defendant OC Discount Nutrition Costa Mesa, LLC’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This is an action for violations of the Corporations Code. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

RANDY SIMON VS CARLOS FROES

Carlos Froes Case No. 20SMCV00801 Hearing Date September 16, 2020 Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Jurisdiction Plaintiff bought a car that defendant Arizona resident advertised on a web site. Plaintiff alleges defendant made false representations regarding the vehicle’s condition and mileage and sues for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. Defendant moves to quash, arguing lack of minimum contacts with California.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NATALIE LEE VS YILING MA

On March 15, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to vacate the default and to quash service of summons. On August 30, 2019, the Court deemed that Defendant had made a general appearance in light of Defendant’s filing of a case management statement on May 28, 2019. The Court ordered Defendant to file a responsive pleading to the complaint within 20 days. On September 17, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to strike.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GREGORY JOHN GENCO JR VS HOLLYWOOD PALLADIUM THEATER ET AL

London now moves to quash service of the Summons and Doe Amendment as to him. London also demurs to the TAC and moves to strike portions of the TAC. Similarly, Coleman moves to quash service of the Summons and Doe Amendment as to him and demurs to the TAC. Finally, Coleman and Live Nation move to strike portions of the TAC. Plaintiff opposes all motions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

OR CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS EMAN TANAGHO

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

    Sep 16, 2020

CREATIVE CONCEPTS HOLDINGS, LLC VS BRIAN CHARLES KELLER, ET AL.

The Court notes that there is also a hearing on the motion to quash service of summons on September 16, 2020. Allowing Counsel to be relieved before a hearing on the motion would prejudice Plaintiff since corporations in general are not allowed to represent themselves. Therefore, Counsel will be allowed to withdraw after the determination of the motion to quash on September 16, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALEXANDRA MORRIS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS RANCHO SAN JOSE DE BUENOS AYRES LTD., A CAYMAN ISLANDS CORPORATION, ET AL.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to quash service of summons and complaint is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DAVID SIMANIAN AND FARIMAH SIMANIAN TRUSTEE OF THE BBJ TRUST VS GREEN WAY HERBAL TRADING, INC., ET AL.

Without such proof of service before the Court, the Court cannot ascertain whether the service purportedly effectuated on Cordero was proper and thus has no basis to quash service of summons and the complaint. Therefore, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Cordero’s motion to quash service of summons and the complaint. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GOLPA VS. DAIMLER AG

(1) Motion to Compel Answers to Special Irogs (2) Motion to Quash Service of Summons Tentative Ruling: (1) Off Calendar per MP – no hearing will be held. (2) Specially Appearing Defendant Daimler AG’s Motion to Quash is granted. As to improper service, although Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

GREGORY TORRES ET AL VS HONEWELL INC ET AL

BC661236 Avco Corporation’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint/Gregory Torres, et al.’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Continuing Hearing on Avco Corporation’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint Gregory Torres, et al.’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Authorizing Filing Under Seal Exhibits A and B to the Declaration of Michael S.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ELMER ERNESTO CORONADO VS JAIME NELSON PADRON

Padron moves to vacate the entry of default on the grounds that he did not have notice of the action and quash service of summons on the grounds that he was never personally served. A court may set aside a default judgment valid on its face but void as a matter of law due to improper service. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (d).) Filing a proof of service by a registered process server creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper.¿ (American Express Centurion Bank v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

SHANNON EWING ET AL VS JUSTIN MELAKU ET AL

As an initial matter, Defendant seeks to proceed by way of a demurrer rather than a motion to quash service of the summons and complaint. The Court cannot consider extrinsic evidence in ruling on a demurrer, so the Court cannot determine at this stage whether Plaintiffs were truly ignorant of Defendant’s identity. More important, Defendant provides no basis for the Court to conclude that Plaintiffs necessarily knew his identity at or shortly after the accident.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

FITNESS VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, LLC VS. BLAHA

A defendant may move to quash service of the summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a).) “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 facts requisite to an effective service.” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413, [internal quotes omitted]; see Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

MICHAEL BERLIN M D VS PATRICK JOHNSON M D ET AL

Discussion MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subd. (a)(1) states: “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.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Discussion MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subd. (a)(1) states: “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.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

HOSSEIN ALIMI, ET AL. VS INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB, ET AL.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Singleton and Wolfen’s motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED. Singleton and Wolfen are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling. DATED: September 11, 2020 _____________________ Hon. Theresa M. Traber Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

HANCOCK VS. RESIDENTIAL MUTUAL

HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SUMMONS FILED BY WESTERN MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Before the Court is a motion to quash summons to Plaintiff Anne Hancock’s complaint filed by Defendant Western Mutual Insurance Company. Defendant makes a special and limited appearance solely for the purpose of bringing its motion to quash. Defendant moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10(a)(1) on the grounds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

CHING VS. QUALITY HEALTHCARE

HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS & COMPLAINT FILED BY CRAIG MITCHELL, et al. * TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by defendants Craig Mitchell and Veteran’s InHome Family Care, LLC (“VIFC”) is denied. Plaintiff has sued four defendants in this case for the return of a $35,000 investment she sent to VIFC. The investment was to be used to convert a motel or hotel into a health care facility.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 223     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.