On February 23, 2021 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Grewal Cargo Inc.,
Silchuk Logistics, Llc,
Singh, Charanjeet,
Singh, Tajinder,
and
California Department Of Health Care Services,
Darrisha Raquel Wheeler,
Fage Usa Dairy Industry, Inc,
Grewal Cargo Inc.,
Grewel Logistics,
Silchuk Logistics, Llc,
Singh, Charanjeet,
Singh, Tajinder,
for Unlimited Civil Auto Tort
in the District Court of San Joaquin County.
Preview
1 Stephen B. Heath - 237622
sheath@heathandyuen.com Electronically Filed
2 Steven W. Yuen - 230768 Superior Court of California
syuen@heathandyuen.com County of San Joaquin
3 Lucy K. Galek - 227237 2021-04-13 14:20:15
lgalek@heathandyuen.com Clerk: Joyce Banek
4 HEATH & YUEN, APC
268 Bush Street, #3006 Motion to Quash
5 San Francisco, CA 94104 05/12/2021 09:00 AM in 11B
Tel: (415) 622-7004
6 Fax: (415) 373-3957
7 Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendant
CHARANJEET SINGH
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
11 JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, AN INCOMPETENT Case No.: STK-CV-UAT-2021-0001576
ADULT, BY AND THROUGH HIS
12 GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARANJEET SINGH’S
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
13 Plaintiffs, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S SERVICE OF
14 v. SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
15 GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET [C.C.P. §§ 418.10]
SINGH; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 150,
16 INCLUSIVE, Date:
Time: 9:00 am
17 Defendants. Dept.: 11B
18 Judge: Hon. Robert T. Waters
File Date: February 23, 2021
19 Trial Date: None
20 I. INTRODUCTION
21 Defendant Charanjeet Singh specially appears to move to quash plaintiff’s service of summons
22 and complaint. Plaintiff’s purported service on Mr. Singh was defective because plaintiff attempted to
23 complete substituted service at a residence in California where Mr. Singh had never lived, worked, nor
24 received mail. Moreover, by the date of the purported service, Mr. Singh has moved to Indiana. Due
25 process rights do not permit service in such a fashion. Accordingly, Mr. Singh specially appears and
26 respectfully requests that this Court grant the instant motion in its entirety and quash plaintiff’s service
27 of process on him.
28 ///
-1-
DEFENDANT CHARANJEET SINGH’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
2 Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor, III, (herein, “plaintiff”) filed his complaint on February 23, 2021,
3 alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Retention and Hiring against defendants
4 Grewal Cargo Inc. and Charanjeet Singh (herein, “Mr. Singh” or “defendant”.) (Exhibit B.) Plaintiff
5 alleges that on January 16, 2021 an auto accident occurred between a Freightliner tractor/trailer
6 operated by defendant, and an unidentified vehicle operated by plaintiff. (Exhibit B ¶ 5.)
7 Plaintiff’s process server attempted to effectuate substituted service on Charanjeet Singh by
8 substitute service by leaving the pleadings at a residence located at 2124 Amber Lead Lane, Ceres,
9 California on March 17, 2021. (Exhibit C.) Thereafter, the server purportedly mailed a copy of the
10 pleadings to Charanjeet Singh at the same residential address. (Exhibit C.) However, Mr. Singh moved
11 to Indiana more than a month before the date of service. ( Exhibit D [Declaration of Charanjeet Singh],
12 ¶ 3.) Mr. Singh had never lived nor worked at 2124 Amber Leaf Lane, Ceres, California 95307, and
13 never used that address as a mailing address. (Id at ¶ 2.) When Mr. Singh did live in California, he
14 lived at all times in Fresno, California. (Id. at ¶ 2.) He has been residing in Indiana exclusively since
15 that time. (Id. at ¶ 3.)
16 This motion follows.
17 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
18 A. Legal Standard Re: Motion to Quash
19 A defendant may move the court for an order to quash service of summons on the ground of
20 lack of jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10.) The code permits a party to effectuate service of a
21 summons and complaint through subservice where personal delivery cannot be completed with
22 reasonable diligence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20.) However, this method of service must be completed
23 “at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing
24 address…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20(b).) Where a party fails to strictly comply with all statutory
25 requirements in service, such “failure to comply deprives a court of jurisdiction to act.” (Lee v. Placer
26 Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)
27 ///
28
-2-
DEFENDANT CHARANJEET SINGH’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
1 B. Plaintiff’s Defective Service Should be Quashed
2 Plaintiff’s defective service should be quashed because service was never affected on Mr.
3 Singh. First, Mr. Singh had moved to Indiana and was no longer residing in California when plaintiff’s
4 process server attempted service. (Exhibit D, ¶¶ 2 & 3.) Second, Mr. Singh had never lived, worked,
5 nor received mail the purported service address. (Exhibit D, ¶¶ 2 & 3.) As such, service was never
6 effectuated upon Mr. Singh at his dwelling house, place of abode, business address or mailing address
7 as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20(b). Plaintiff’s failure to strictly comply with
8 these statutory requirements acts to deprive this Court of jurisdiction to act. (Lee, 28 Cal.App.4th at p.
9 509.)
10 IV. CONCLUSION
11 Based on the information stated herein and in the supporting papers, specially appearing
12 defendant Charanjeet Singh respectfully requests that this Court grant this motion in its entirety and
13 quash plaintiff’s service of summons and complaint.
14 DATED: April 13, 2021
HEATH & YUEN, APC
15
16
By
17 Lucy K. Galek
Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendant
18 CHARANJEET SINGH
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
DEFENDANT CHARANJEET SINGH’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
Preview
1 Stephen B. Heath - 237622 sheath@heathandyuen.com Electronically Filed 2 Steven W. Yuen - 230768 Superior Court of California syuen@heathandyuen.com County of San Joaquin 3 Lucy K. Galek - 227237 2021-04-13 14:20:15 lgalek@heathandyuen.com Clerk: Joyce Banek 4 HEATH & YUEN, APC 268 Bush Street, #3006 Motion to Quash 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 05/12/2021 09:00 AM in 11B Tel: (415) 622-7004 6 Fax: (415) 373-3957 7 Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendant CHARANJEET SINGH 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN 11 JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, AN INCOMPETENT Case No.: STK-CV-UAT-2021-0001576 ADULT, BY AND THROUGH HIS 12 GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARANJEET SINGH’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 13 Plaintiffs, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S SERVICE OF 14 v. SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 15 GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET [C.C.P. §§ 418.10] SINGH; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 150, 16 INCLUSIVE, Date: Time: 9:00 am 17 Defendants. Dept.: 11B 18 Judge: Hon. Robert T. Waters File Date: February 23, 2021 19 Trial Date: None 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 Defendant Charanjeet Singh specially appears to move to quash plaintiff’s service of summons 22 and complaint. Plaintiff’s purported service on Mr. Singh was defective because plaintiff attempted to 23 complete substituted service at a residence in California where Mr. Singh had never lived, worked, nor 24 received mail. Moreover, by the date of the purported service, Mr. Singh has moved to Indiana. Due 25 process rights do not permit service in such a fashion. Accordingly, Mr. Singh specially appears and 26 respectfully requests that this Court grant the instant motion in its entirety and quash plaintiff’s service 27 of process on him. 28 /// -1- DEFENDANT CHARANJEET SINGH’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor, III, (herein, “plaintiff”) filed his complaint on February 23, 2021, 3 alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Retention and Hiring against defendants 4 Grewal Cargo Inc. and Charanjeet Singh (herein, “Mr. Singh” or “defendant”.) (Exhibit B.) Plaintiff 5 alleges that on January 16, 2021 an auto accident occurred between a Freightliner tractor/trailer 6 operated by defendant, and an unidentified vehicle operated by plaintiff. (Exhibit B ¶ 5.) 7 Plaintiff’s process server attempted to effectuate substituted service on Charanjeet Singh by 8 substitute service by leaving the pleadings at a residence located at 2124 Amber Lead Lane, Ceres, 9 California on March 17, 2021. (Exhibit C.) Thereafter, the server purportedly mailed a copy of the 10 pleadings to Charanjeet Singh at the same residential address. (Exhibit C.) However, Mr. Singh moved 11 to Indiana more than a month before the date of service. ( Exhibit D [Declaration of Charanjeet Singh], 12 ¶ 3.) Mr. Singh had never lived nor worked at 2124 Amber Leaf Lane, Ceres, California 95307, and 13 never used that address as a mailing address. (Id at ¶ 2.) When Mr. Singh did live in California, he 14 lived at all times in Fresno, California. (Id. at ¶ 2.) He has been residing in Indiana exclusively since 15 that time. (Id. at ¶ 3.) 16 This motion follows. 17 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 18 A. Legal Standard Re: Motion to Quash 19 A defendant may move the court for an order to quash service of summons on the ground of 20 lack of jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10.) The code permits a party to effectuate service of a 21 summons and complaint through subservice where personal delivery cannot be completed with 22 reasonable diligence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20.) However, this method of service must be completed 23 “at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing 24 address…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20(b).) Where a party fails to strictly comply with all statutory 25 requirements in service, such “failure to comply deprives a court of jurisdiction to act.” (Lee v. Placer 26 Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.) 27 /// 28 -2- DEFENDANT CHARANJEET SINGH’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 1 B. Plaintiff’s Defective Service Should be Quashed 2 Plaintiff’s defective service should be quashed because service was never affected on Mr. 3 Singh. First, Mr. Singh had moved to Indiana and was no longer residing in California when plaintiff’s 4 process server attempted service. (Exhibit D, ¶¶ 2 & 3.) Second, Mr. Singh had never lived, worked, 5 nor received mail the purported service address. (Exhibit D, ¶¶ 2 & 3.) As such, service was never 6 effectuated upon Mr. Singh at his dwelling house, place of abode, business address or mailing address 7 as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20(b). Plaintiff’s failure to strictly comply with 8 these statutory requirements acts to deprive this Court of jurisdiction to act. (Lee, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 9 509.) 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 Based on the information stated herein and in the supporting papers, specially appearing 12 defendant Charanjeet Singh respectfully requests that this Court grant this motion in its entirety and 13 quash plaintiff’s service of summons and complaint. 14 DATED: April 13, 2021 HEATH & YUEN, APC 15 16 By 17 Lucy K. Galek Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendant 18 CHARANJEET SINGH 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- DEFENDANT CHARANJEET SINGH’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT