“Notice of the litigation does not confer personal jurisdiction absent substantial compliance with the statutory requirements for service of summons.” (MJS Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 555, 557 (citing Ault v. Dinner For Two, Inc. (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 145, 148); Renoir v. Redstar Corp. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1150 ("fulfilling the statutory requirements of service of process-i.e., service of a summons-is necessary to obtain personal jurisdiction over a party").) When the summons was not served in substantial compliance with the statutory requirements, the court does not obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant. (MJS Enterprises, Inc.,153 Cal.App.3d at 557)
Under Code of Civil Procedure §474, “When the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant, he must state that fact in the complaint... and such defendant may be designated in any pleading or proceeding by any name, and when his true name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly...” Code of Civil Procedure § 412.20 provides that a summons “shall be directed to the defendant, signed by the clerk and issued under the seal of the court in which the action is pending, and it shall contain . . . the title of the court in which the action is pending [and] the names of the parties to the action.”
Further, Code of Civil Procedure § 474 requires that the summons served on a defendant which the plaintiff intends to name in place of a Doe defendant clearly reflect this. Section 474 provides that “the copy of the summons [must bear] on the face thereof a notice stating in substance: ‘To the person served: You are hereby served in the within action (or proceedings) as (or on behalf of) the person sued under the fictitious name of (designating it).’ The certificate or affidavit of service must state the fictitious name under which such defendant was served and the fact that notice of identity was given by endorsements upon the document served as required by this section.”
A summons need not be amended if an amended pleading is served on an existing party; however, an amended summons is required where a new defendant party is added; i.e., it must name the defendant to be added. (Gillette v. Burbank Community Hosp. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 430, 433.) Further, a plaintiff adding a new party must serve all ADR papers as required by California Rules of Court Rule 3.221(c).
In Billings v. Edwards, the plaintiff brought an action against an exterminator company. (Billings v. Edwards (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 826.) The defendant argued that service was defective because the summons mistakenly showed service on “John Edwards Pest Control” rather than on “Edwards and Son Pest Control,” the actual corporate name of the defendant. The defendant admitted that copies of the summons and complaint were actually received by officers of the corporation. In reversing the judgment of dismissal, the court held that the minor variance in the name of the corporate defendant was not misleading and did not render plaintiff’s service of process ineffective. (Id. at 831.) The court stated: “The complaint sometimes designates a defendant by a name misspelled or otherwise erroneous . . . , and this mistake may be carried into the summons. However, if the service is otherwise properly made, and the person served is aware that he is the person named as a defendant in the erroneous manner, jurisdiction is obtained. . . .” (Id.)
In Carol Gilbert, Inc. v. Haller, the plaintiff added the defaulted defendant as a doe defendant. (Carol Gilbert, Inc. v. Haller (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 852.) The plaintiff then served a summons on the defendant; the summons indicated he was being sued in his “individual capacity.” He failed to answer, and default and ultimately default judgment were entered against him. A year passed, and he discovered the lawsuit when his wages were garnished. He moved to set aside the default and default judgment as void, contending the summons should have identified him as a doe defendant, rather than an individual defendant. The trial court denied the motion, finding substantial compliance with the service requirements. The court of appeals disagreed, and reversed and remanded the case.
"[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. Thus, a default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void." (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444 (internal citations omitted).) Code of Civil Procedure § 473.5 provides relief from entry of default if such service “has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473.5(a).)
Actual notice has been held to mean “genuine knowledge of the party litigant.” (Rosenthal v. Garner (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 891, 895.) A motion to set aside a default based on section 473.5 “shall be served and filed within a reasonable time, but in no event exceeding the earlier of:
(Code Civ. Proc. § 473.5(a).)
A motion to set aside default under Section 473.5 must be accompanied by “a copy of the answer, motion, or other pleading proposed to be filed in the action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473.5(c).)
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 the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc. §418.10(a).)
A motion to quash must be made on or before the last day of his or her time to plead, or within any further time the Court may for good cause allow. (Code Civ. Proc. §418.10(a).)
When a defendant moves to quash service of summons, 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 defendant may file a motion to quash service of a summons on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction. Code of Civil Procedure Section 418.10 provides, in relevant part: “(a) 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.”
While the cases interpreting Section 412.30 state that its provisions are mandatory, all that is required is substantial compliance in order to render the service of a summons upon a corporation effective. (Schering Corporation v. Superior Court (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 737, 741.) “The provisions of this chapter should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by the defendant . . . . The liberal construction rule . . . will eliminate unnecessary, time-consuming, and costly disputes over legal technicalities, without prejudicing the right of defendants to proper notice of court proceedings.” (Cory v. Crocker National Bank (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 665, 670 (internal quotes omitted).)
Personal service may be accomplished by personally delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served. (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.10.) If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person being served, substitute service may be effected 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 . . . in the presence of . . . a person apparently in charge . . . and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail . . . to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b).) Two or three unsuccessful attempts to personally serve a defendant at a proper place ordinarily qualifies as reasonable diligence. (Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Ham (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 330, 337.)
Substituted service of the summons and complaint is proper when a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served. (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b).) Substituted service may be made by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s usual place of business in the presence of a person apparently in charge of his or her office or place of business, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served. (Id.) Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b).)
A summons may be served on a corporation by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the person designated as agent for service of process, the president, CEO, or other head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or CFO, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 416.10.) Code of Civil Procedure Section 412.30 provides: “In an action against a corporation or unincorporated association (including a partnership), the copy of the summons that is served shall contain a notice stating in substance: ‘To the person served: You are hereby served in the within action (or special proceeding) on behalf of (here state the name of the corporation or the unincorporated association) as a person upon whom a copy of the summons and of the complaint may be delivered to effect service on said party . . . .’ If service is also made on such person as an individual, the notice shall also indicate that service is being made on such person as an individual as well as on behalf of the corporation or unincorporated association.” Section 412.30 further provides: “If such notice does not appear on the copy of the summons served, no default may be taken against such corporation or unincorporated association or against such person individually, as the case may be.”
Code of Civil Procedure Section 415.40 provides that service of a summons and complaint upon a person residing outside of California may be accomplished by any of the four methods for serving persons within California – personal delivery, “substitute service,” service by mail coupled with an acknowledgement of receipt, or by publication. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 417.20 "if service is made by mail pursuant to Section 415.40, proof of service shall include evidence satisfactory to the court establishing actual delivery to the person to be served, by a signed return receipt or other evidence."
Filing a proof of service that complies with statutory standards creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper. (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1441; American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390; Evid. Code, § 647 (“The return of a process server registered pursuant to . . . the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return”).) However, the presumption only arises if the proof of service complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs. (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1441-1442.) Proof of service of summons may be impeached by evidence that contradicts it. (City of Los Angeles v. Morgan (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 726, 731.)
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
San Luis Obispo County, CA
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
Los Angeles County, CA
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Order Publication of Summons Tentative
Santa Barbara County, CA
Need Proof of Service of Summons. PrC § 8250
George
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Orange County, CA
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.
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
TransCanna’s motion to quash service of summons is denied.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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).
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
“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.
Marin County, CA
Motion for quash summons Date of Hearing: November 25, 2020 Trial Date: None set.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Los Angeles County, CA
PAUL’s motion to quash service of summons is granted.
Solano County, CA
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.
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Ventura County, CA
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.
El Dorado County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Orange County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
