What is a Summons?

Useful Rulings on Summons

Recent Rulings on Summons

1-25 of 10000 results

MARTIN BALMACEDA VS ZHICHENG LIU ET AL

Plaintiff’s counsel did not contact and retain Aaron Lukken to serve Liu with the summons and complaint until August 2019. (Declaration of Aaron Lukken, ¶¶ 7-8.) In other words, Plaintiff’s counsel waited almost four years after the accident and almost two years after the case was filed to attempt to locate and serve Liu.

  • Hearing

POLLY MALONEY V. DEVEN WEK

In opposition, Pinnacle provides a proof of service filed on May 17, 2010 in this action, wherein a registered process server declared that he personally served Wek with the complaint and summons in this action on April 29, 2010, at 1533 Brighton in Grover Beach, California. (Lewi Decl. ¶ 4; Exh. A.)

  • Hearing

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

FABIOLA AVENDANO V. JAMES T. MCCORD, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Order Publication of Summons Tentative

  • Hearing

MATTER OF THE BRUZZONE FAMILY TRUST

Need Proof of Service of Summons. PrC § 8250

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

TAMEKA DIXON, ET AL. VS EDGAR S. GONZALEZ, ET AL.

Plaintiffs filed proofs of service showing Edgar was personally served with the summons and complaint on 12/15/19, (Amended Proof of Service filed 2/25/20), and that Saul was served by substituted service when the process server left copies of the complaint and summons with Edgar for Saul. On 2/25/20, Plaintiffs had each Defendants’ default entered. On 7/13/20, Defendant Saul filed the instant motion to set aside default. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. 2.

  • Hearing

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS EMMA GRISHAI SARKISJAN, ET AL.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE: Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents: · Proof of Service e of Summons and Complaint on Defendant Emma Grishai Sarkisjan filed with this Court in the above-entitled action. · Default of Defendant Emma Grishai Sarkisjan entered by this Court on September 18, 2020. · Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint on Defendant Arusyak Nikogosyan filed with this Court in the above-entitled action.

  • Hearing

ALEKSANDR BIBLE VS ROBERT ALLEN FLOWERS

Although the proof of service does not set forth what documents were served, it appears this proof of service was meant to indicate service of the summons and complaint. To the extent that it is, the Court notes this proof of service is not the proper proof of service of summons Plaintiff should have filed with respect to service of the summons and complaint.

  • Hearing

CLEMENS VS PRENTICE

She also mentions COVID and something about her business, but none of that relates to service of the summons. Motion to quash denied. Defendant Gross is ordered to give notice of this ruling and to answer within 10 days.

  • Hearing

1301 GLADSTONE STREET INVESTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ET, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Demeril’s declaration does not address the information contained in the proof of service filed March 23, 2020 by Plaintiff; namely, that he was purportedly personally served with the summons and complaint on March 20, 2020 at the Redondo Beach address. If Plaintiff were, in fact, served on March 20, 2020 with the summons and complaint at the Redondo Beach address, then his declaration regarding his purported inability to visit the Glendora address to review the complaint would appear to lack credibility.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

GRACIELA FIGUEROA CRUZ VS JERILINE GAILE LANDADA CELIS, ET AL.

IN ADDITION, the court advances and vacates the December 31, 2020 Final Status Conference and the January 14, 2021 Trial dates and orders Plaintiff to appear on January 11, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to file proof of service of the Summons and Complaint. Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling and file proof of service of such.

  • Hearing

MARCUS LAUN VS JAMES PAKULIS

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

  • Hearing

TAMARA CHOLAKIAN VS STEPHEN SANTEN

Plaintiff’s filing of proof of service indicates that Defendant was personally served with summons, complaint, civil case cover sheet, and civil case cover sheet addendum and notice of case management on March 5, 2020. California Code of Civil Procedure section 435, subdivision (b)(1) requires Defendant to file this instant motion within 30 days of the service, unless such time is extended by the Court or stipulation.

  • Hearing

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

It makes no difference that defendant had actual knowledge of the action, as such knowledge does not dispense with the statutory requirements for service of summons. (Ibid.) Discussion Defendants move to quash the service of summons as untimely. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.110(b).

  • Hearing

DARIUSH G ADLI, ET AL. VS KEVIN D. FRAZER, ET AL.

However, service via certified mail is not a proper method by which to serve a summons and complaint. Thus, Petitioner still has not demonstrated the Petition was served in accordance with Section 1290.4. C.

  • Hearing

TINA YAN VS. STEVEN R. RHOADS

“A general appearance by a party is equivalent to personal service of summons on such party," (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.) Thus, a general appearance operates as a consent to jurisdiction of the person, dispensing with the requirement of service of process, and curing defects in service, (Dial 800. supra 118 Cal.App.4th at p.52; 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1996) Jurisdiction, § 190, p, 756.) II.

  • 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

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.) Defendant attests that he was not personally served, nor did he receive any summons and complaint from anyone. (See Declaration of Robert O’Neill ¶ 6.) 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

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

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

  • Hearing

HEATHER HERNDON VS. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Petitions for writ of mandate must be served in the same manner as service of summons in a civil action. Code of Civil Procedure sections 413.10 through 417.40 discuss service of surnmons. The Court will not calendar the petition without proof of proper service. Accordingly, the reserved hearing date has been VACATED from the Court's calendar.

  • Hearing

HEATHER HERNDON VS. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD

Petitions for writ of mandate must be served in the same manner as service of summons in a civil action. Code of Civil Procedure sections 413.10 through 417.40 discuss service of summons. The Court will not calendar the petition without proof of proper service. Accordingly, the reserved hearing date has been VACATED from the Court’s calendar.

  • 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

MORGAN V RICKARD

Plaintiff Ruiz concedes that she has not served the summons and complaint in her action on defendants EAN Holdings, LLC and Enterprise Car Rental. See Opposition, page 2, lines 23-24.) “…Where a defendant has not appeared, service of notice or papers need not be made upon the defendant.” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1014.) Only plaintiff Ruiz has opposed the motion.

  • Hearing

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

Thus, it has been over 2 years since the commencement of the action, yet Plaintiff has not yet served Hennessey with the summons and complaint or filed a proof of service of the summons regarding Hennessey. (See CCP § 583.420(a)(1).) Defense counsel, Guillermo E. Partida, states that Plaintiff never served the summons and complaint on Hennessy. (Partida Decl., ¶5.) The only proofs of service filed by Plaintiff refer to Defendant Wendy Miller and non-party Jim Miller.

  • 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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.