What is a Summons?

Useful Rulings on Summons

Recent Rulings on Summons

1-25 of 10000 results

LUCILLE A BIONDI VS NICHOLAS A BIONDI

Issuance of Summons and service thereof because pleading in part is a civil action requiring compliance with the rules therefore. Petition requests damages. 3. Proposed Order GRAEME A FISHER THE FISHER TRUST DATED 4-10-19 WILLIAM H FISHER STEVEN N.H. WOOD

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

GARRET ADELMAN, ET AL. VS JEROME ADELMAN, ET AL.

The Court notes that no proof of service of the Summons and operative Complaint has been filed as to any Defendant, but Defendant Jerome answered on January 30, 2018. Following the parties’ stipulation that the amount in controversy was less than $25,000, the action was transferred to the Limited Jurisdiction Court on February 28, 2018. On January 17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication (“the Motion”), against all Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

ALEX MORENO VS ALEJANDRO RIVERRA, ET AL.

CCP section 473.5 provides: (a) When service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action and a default or default judgment has been entered against him or her in the action, he or she may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RANCHO NUEVO VS. SANTA ROSA

s ("Rancho") service of the Summons and Complaint on Santa Rosa, on the ground that Plaintiff fails to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that this Court has either general or specific personal jurisdiction over Santa Rosa.

  • 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

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS MANUEL DE LA CRUZ

Specifically, the Summons and Complaint were delivered to Defendant’s brother who failed to timely inform Defendant. (Ibid.) Upon learning of this action, Defendant came to Court but was informed that the time to file a response to the Complaint had passed. (Ibid.) Defendant, therefore, has demonstrated the default was taken against him by surprise due to lack of actual notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIA ALVAREZ VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

On March 12, 2020, Plaintiffs filed proof of personal service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant SEC. Defendant SEC filed its Answer on April 2, 2020. On May 29, 2020, Defendant SEC filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. Proof of personal service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant Olivos was filed on August 14, 2020. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the instant Motion to Dismiss on September 8, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DON J. REYNOLDS, ET AL. VS JAMES V. BACON

LEGAL STANDARD Corporations Code § 800(c) states as follows: “In any action referred to in subdivision (b), at any time within 30 days after service of summons upon the corporation or upon any defendant who is an officer or director of the corporation, or held such office at the time of the acts complained of, the corporation or the defendant may move the court for an order, upon notice and hearing, requiring the plaintiff to furnish a bond as hereinafter provided.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MANUEL CELEYA AGUILAR VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

On March 12, 2020, Plaintiffs filed proof of personal service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant SEC. Defendant SEC filed its Answer on April 2, 2020. On May 29, 2020, Defendant SEC filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. Proof of personal service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant Olivos was filed on July 21, 2020. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the instant Motion to Dismiss on September 8, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

QING ZHAO VS CHEN WANG, ET AL.

Shui was personally served with the summons and FAC on December 6, 2019. Default was thereafter entered against Shui on April 8, 2020. Shui now moves to set aside the default. Plaintiff opposes.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

PATTON VS MCAT INC HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST

It is unsurprising that Methot was not notified by the Postal Center of the attempted service because neither the Summons itself nor the service were directed toward him. It may very well be the case that someone at the Postal Center took or accepted the Summons and Complaint. However, Methot is not named on the Summons and neither the corporate Defendants nor the Dakovich are box holders at the Center, so what then is the person at the Postal Center to do?

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

IAN CAMPBELL VS PYLE IRREVOCABLE TRUST ET AL

CCP § 415.20(b), which governs substituted service on individuals, provides: If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, as specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

DELFINA PEREZ VS ST. CLAIR PLASTIC, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to identify any prejudice stemming from Defendant’s filing of its answer on July 2, 2020 – less than one week after its due date and only two days after Plaintiff filed proof of service of the summons and complaint. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to vacate the June 30, 2020, entry of default is GRANTED under the discretionary prong of Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b). Conclusion and ORDER Based on the foregoing, Defendant St.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SHERI JENNINGS VS. FUEL360 MEDIA INC.

First, the Court is not aware of whether Fuel360, Inc. was served with the summons and complaint of the action. Thus, it does not appear that Fuel360, Inc. is a party to this action as of yet. Second, Griffith is an individual defendant and Fuel360, Inc. did not jointly file the demurrer with him. At this time, the Court will overrule the demurrer on this ground. Conclusion and Order Griffith’s demurrer to the FAC is overruled. Griffith is ordered to file an answer within 10 days of this order.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AVITUS INC. VS ANDIAMO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Written Promissory Note Open Book Account Account Stated Breach of Personal Guarantee On June 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a proof of service, which reflected that Andiamo had been personally served with the summons and complaint on May 30, 2019. On July 9, 2019, Andiamo’s default was entered; on that date, Plaintiff dismissed Tunzi without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

SCOTT DAIN VS MARTIN RAMIREZ, ET AL.

CCP § 473.5 CCP § 473.5(a) states, in relevant part: “When service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action and a default or default judgment has been entered against him or her in the action, he or she may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

KIM D MIDDLETON ET AL VS HOLLYWOOD HEALTH CENTER INC ET AL

Due process and California law require a plaintiff to serve a defendant with a copy of the summons and operative complaint to prosecute her claims against the defendant. See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. § 413.10, et seq. Similarly, a newly added defendant must be granted the right to fully defend itself including through challenges to the pleadings, discovery, and dispositive motions. E.g., Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.10, et seq., 437c, 2017.010; see also A.N. v. County of Los Angeles, 171 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

SALES V. NEW THEORY MANAGEMENT & DESIGN, INC.

TENTATIVE RULING Due process requires a motion filed against a non-party to an action to be served on that non-party in the same manner as required for service of summons and complaint. Ahart, California Practice Guide, Enforcing Judgments & Debts, §6:1576.1, p. 6G-93; see also generally requirements for service of applications for writs of possession and for writs of attachment [C.C.P. §§512.030(b) and 482.070(d), respectively].

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

KINGDOM OF SWEDEN VS DITTE LISBETH JENSEN

[X] DEFAULT ENTERED ON: 5/5/20 against Defendant [X] MANDATORY JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM CIV-100 SUBMITTED FOR ENTRY OF COURT JUDGMENT (CRC 3.1800(a)) [X] SERVICE: Complaint and Summons On March 17, 2020, Defendant was substitute served at her Los Angeles residence after 3 previous attempts to personally serve her. [X] DECLARATION OF MAILING -- Request for Entry of Default to Defendant (CCP § 587) The Request for Entry of Default was mailed to Defendant’s residence on April 30, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

CLARK REMINGTON VS CYPRESS LLP

Plaintiff argues the 2012 judgment is void because he was never served with a summons, nor notified of the arbitration. Via this action, plaintiff seeks to set aside the 2012 judgment, arguing inadequate service. The court sustained a demurrer on January 15, 2020, granting leave to allege service of the petition to confirm arbitration was not proper. Defendant demurs to the first amended complaint on the same grounds.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JERROLD MARTIN VS BRIGHTVIEW COMPANIES LLC ET AL

., was not a party to this action until it was substituted for the fictitious name of Doe 4, and served with summons and complaint under the true name. The file shows that in response to this service, defendant and cross-complainant filed its Answer to the FAC, and its Cross-Complaint together on August 12, 2019. This is appropriate, and no advance leave was required.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CITY OF AZUSA, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS 534 EAST FOOTHILL, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

On April 17, 2019, City filed a proof of service, which reflected that 534 Foothill was personally served with the summons and petition that day. On April 19, 2019, City filed another proof of service, which reflected that Bank was personally served with the summons and petition that day. On July 31, 2019, City filed a proof of service, which reflected that 534 Foothill and Bank had been mail-served with the petition that day. The court determines that City has provided sufficient evidence of notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ASCENTIUM CAPITAL LLC VS. FULFILLING HEALTH CARE SERVICES, LLC

Here, the POS of the summons and complaint shows substituted service on 10-24-19 to defendant at 14248 Oxnard Street, Suite B, Van Nuys CA 91401, by leaving the documents with: “’John Doe’ (refused name), Person in Charge - Middle Eastern male with glasses, dark brown hair and a beard, 43 years old, with brown eyes.” (ROA No. 9, Para. 5(b).) The POS also shows that the summons and complaint were subsequently mailed by first class mail to the same address. (Id., Page 3.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

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.