What is a Summons?

Useful Rulings on Summons

Recent Rulings on Summons

1-25 of 10000 results

TITO A THOMAS VS MARK ANTHONY SARNO

Kota now moves to quash service of summons and the SAC. 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

    Jul 17, 2020

888 TOWER, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS SMITH PATTEN, A BUSINESS ENTITY, FORM UNKNOWN

When a business organization’s form is unknown, Code of Civil Procedure section 415.95 applies which states: “A summons may be served on a business organization, form unknown, by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours with the person who is apparently in charge of the office of that business organization, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

NADA RYAN VS CITY OF PASADENA

A proof of service in the file shows that the summons and first amended complaint was served on 4/16/2019. Defendant did not respond to the first amended complaint. On July 31, 2019, the Court set an OSC re dismissal for failure to enter default for 9/4/2019. A trial setting conference was set for the same day. Plaintiff failed to seek entry of default and failed to appear at the hearing on the OSC and the case was dismissed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

TPE ACQUISTION,INC. VS PLATINUM STAFFING

The Padillas and Three Star) On November 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed 5 proofs of service, which reflected that Three Star and Payroll had both been substitute served with the summons and complaint on September 28, 2018, that The Padillas had both been substitute served with same on October 2, 2018 and that Platinum had been substitute served with same on October 3, 2018. On November 21, 2018, Platinum’s, Payroll’s and Carlos Padilla’s defaults were entered.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RICHARD ROGACHEFSKY ET AL VS RESIDENCE INN BY MARRIOTT LLC

In addition, any motion to quash service to this entity is moot because it has no obligation to respond to a summons in an action to which it is not a party. The moving party, non-party Residence Inn by Marriott, LLC, is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

EDPO LLC DBA EXPO PROPANE FKA EXPO PROPANE, INC. VS DESTINATION SHUTTLE SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiff also points out that defendant was served with summons and complaint and made a general appearance prior to the application being served and filed. Defendant filed a demurrer to the cross-complaint on December 30, 2019. The court finds that NTI-CA made a general appearance before the application was served upon it. The court also finds no basis for continuing the hearing. Plaintiff has met the requirements under CCP §483.010(a)-(c). Plaintiff has met its burden of proof under CCP §484.090(a).

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

ESTATE OF: RICHARD MALONEY

Service of the Order to Show Cause must be in the same manner as a summons (Code Civ. Proc., § 1016.)2 Petitioner must also provide Notice of Zoom Appearance Only and the Zoom instructions for D9 with the documents served. 2 It is noted the Petitioner served a copy of the Motion on Mr. Maloney on March 12, 2020, but as the Court had not yet issued the OSC, said notice is insufficient for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 1212.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

DEADSOXY, LLC VS SOXNET, INC.

It demonstrates Juan Juarez Medina, a registered California process server, served Ryu via substitute service at 235 S. 6th Ave., La Puente, CA 91746 (the “La Puente Address”) by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with a person apparently in charge of Judgment Debtor’s office. (Id.) The server thereafter mailed a copy of the citation via first-class mail to the La Puente Address. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RAFAEL DAVID MIRANDA VS ANDRES CONTRERAS ET AL

The court takes judicial notice of: (1) proof of service of the summons and original complaint, (2) proof of service by mail of summons and FAC, (3) proof of service of summons and FAC, (4) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s proof of service of summons, (5) certified copy of a grant deed dated November 8, 2005, and (6) minute order dated July 29, 2016, in Case No. BC610494. Evid. Code § 452 and CRC rules 3.1306(c) and 3.1113(1).

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

LINN VS HUSTEDT HEARING RE: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF NANCY LINN BY HEIDI HUSTEDT, SWAN CENTER LLC, HUSTEDT PROPERTIESLLC REPRESENTED BY WESIERSKI & ZUREK LLP

Moving parties Heidi Hustedt, Hustedt Properties, LLC and Swan Center, LLC move to quash the service of summons on each of them asserting lack of personal jurisdiction.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

BENJAMIN F. POCO, ET AL. VS WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB, ET AL.

Additionally, there is no indication on ecourt as of July 1, 2020 at 10:47 a.m. that All Persons has been served with the summons and complaint, let alone with the instant motion. Plaintiffs have failed to cite to any supporting legal authority for the motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

STEVEN POSEN, ET AL. VS DESILU STUDIOS, INC., ET AL.

The certificate of mailing indicates that a copy of the Request for Entry of Default was mailed to Hensley and Desilu at the addresses where each was served with the Summons and Complaint. This is sufficient to meet the statutory requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 587. SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS: (Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

POPPINGTON, LLC, ET AL. VS ENTERTAINMENT ONE REALITY PRODUCTIONS, INC, ET AL.

If this motion is granted, the Court shall issue the following orders: (1) eOne shall deposit $17,651.25 with the Clerk of the Court, (2) upon making this deposit, eOne shall be discharged from any further liability to Plaintiffs on their first cause of action, (3) NYC DSS shall be substituted as a defendant on Plaintiffs’ first cause of action, (4) within 20 days of notice of this order, Plaintiffs shall serve on NYC DSS, or its attorney, a copy of the complaint and summons in this action, and (5) NYC DSS shall

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JI AE KIM VS FORNASERI ANTHONY

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS (CCP § 418.10) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Anthony Fornaseri’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is CONTINUED to OCTOBER 7, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ELIJAH HAMMET VS WHITTIER SCHOOL

Although the complaint was filed in September of 2018, summons was improvidently issued as no guardian ad litem was appointed until April of 2019. ROA 42. The operative pleading is the FAC filed in February, 2019. ROA 32. Two defendants have been dismissed. ROA 14-15, 64-65. The remaining defendant, SDUSD, filed an amended answer in July, 2019. ROA 66. The case has been set for trial several times; currently it is set for trial in December, 2020. ROA 79, 85.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BLIZZARD ENERGY, INC. V. BERND SCHAEFERS

Blizzard is correct that Code of Civil Procedure section 415.40 provides that “[a] summons may be served on a person outside this state in any manner provided by this article or by sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, requiring a return receipt. Service of a summons by this form of mail is deemed complete on the 10th day after such mailing.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

JOE E. VERNON VS MARIO SANFORD, ET AL.

[s]ervice within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subds. (a), (b).) Petitioner has not filed proof of service demonstrating service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing on Respondents. Therefore, the Court cannot find that Petitioner has satisfied the requirements for service under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1290.4.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

VIP REAL ESTATE, ET AL. VS SARA SOLIS, ET AL.

Cross-Defendant Mejia’s motion to quash service of summons is DENIED. II. Cross-Defendant Mejia’s motion to strike Cross-Complaint is MOOT. Cross-Complainants Solis and Sanchez to give NOTICE. I. Quash Cross-Defendant Mejia moves to quash service of summons pursuant to CCP §§ 415.10-415.45. Mejia made a general appearance in this action when he filed his Cross-Complaint on 3/10/20. Therefore, this court has jurisdiction over Mejia pursuant to CCP § 410.50(a). Motion is DENIED. II.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS WEST COAST PLASTICS IN

For example, if a defendant is not validly served with a summons and complaint, the court lacks personal jurisdiction and a default judgment in such action is subject to being set aside as void. [Citation.] [¶] But when a statute authorizes a prescribed procedure and the court acts contrary to the authority conferred, the court exceeds its jurisdiction. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

STILLWELL MADISON, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS GIRARDI & KEESE, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

Course of Proceedings According to proofs of service on file, Defendants were personally served with the Summons, Complaint, and moving papers on April 10, 2020. B. Applicable Law 1. Entity Defendants Attachment is a prejudgment remedy providing for the seizure of one or more of the defendant’s assets to aid in the collection of a money demand pending the outcome of the trial of the action. See Whitehouse v. Six Corporation, (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 527, 533.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MIDWAY RENT A CAR, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS NICHOLAS JOHN FIASCHETTI

Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (c), provides that, “if the only address reasonably known for the person to be served is a private mailbox obtained through a commercial mail receiving agency service of process may be effected on the first delivery attempt by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with the commercial mail receiving agency…” As no other address was known, the process server effectuated service at 9903 Santa Monica Blvd., #318, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, which is a private

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JASON MITCHELL, ET AL., VS. DANIEL M. UZAN

Reason for Delay Triumph argues it was not properly served the summons and complaint in this matter. Plaintiffs’ process server claimed to have effectuated personal service on Triumph on November 11, 2019. Service of process was made on Bailey Watson, the person in charge at 5737 Kanan Road, Agoura Hills, California 9130, a postal annex mailbox location. Watson is not an employee, let alone the registered agent for service of process, of Triumph.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

CUSTOMPAK, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS 3L DISTRIBUTION, A MARYLAND CORPORATION

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT (CCP §§ 410.30; 418.10) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant 3L Distribution, Inc.’s (1) Motion to Quash the Summons and Complaint, and (2) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint are DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BUNDIT APITCHATWOOT VS ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

[s]ervice within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subds. (a), (b).) Petitioner has not filed proof of service demonstrating service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing on Respondent. Therefore, the Court cannot find that Petitioner has satisfied the requirements for service under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1290.4.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

TERESA OWENS VS MALIPEP, LLC

However, the Court will not take judicial notice of the truth of the matters asserted in the Quitclaim Deed, Deed of Trust, Notice of Default, Notice of Trustee’s Sale, Trustee’s Deed, 2017 UD Action Summons, Teresa’s amended prejudgment claim, Owens v. Malipep Complaint, Belcher’s prejudgment claim, UD MSJ, 11/29/18 Complaint, 12/13/18 Complaint, FAC, Court File, Complaint, and May 8, 2020 entry of default. (D-RJN, Exhs. 1-16.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

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 gather your results.