Preview
1 Cody Molica
1029 North Road, #175
2
Westfield, MA 01085
3 (619) 693-7896
cmolica11@gmail.com
4
Cross-Defendant in Pro Per
5
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF SONOMA
9
JASON NEEL Case No.: 22CV01758
10
Plaintiff,
11
vs. DEFENDANT CODY MOLICA’S NOTICE
12 OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH
SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICING; ASSET SERVICE OF SUMMONS, DECLARATION
13 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
DEFAULT MANAGEMENT, INC., UNITED
14 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT (CCP § 418.10
STATES REAL ESTATE CORPORATION; (A)
15 CNA EQUITIES GROUP, LLC; AND
RUSHMYFILE, BUSINESS ENTITY FORM DEPT. 5
16 UNKNOWN, and VIGIL REAL ESTATE, ACTION FILED 08/16/2022
17 BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN and HON. TIMOTHY VOLKMANN
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.
18 HEARING: 5/25/23
TIME: 9AM
19
UNITED STATES REAL ESTATE UNLIMITED CIVIL ACTION
20 CORPORATION, Cross-Complainant,
21
v.
22
23 JASON NEEL, CNA EQUITY GROUP, INC, a
professional corporation, RUSHMYFILE, INC,
24 a California corporation, CODY MOLICA, and
25 ROES 1-50, inclusive,
26 Cross-Defendants.
27
28
NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH SUMMONS AGAINST CROSS DEFENDANT CODY MOLICA
1 To: UNITED STATES REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, Cross-Complainant, and to
2
Jeffrey Lowenthal, their respective attorney of record: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Cross-
3
Defendant CODY MOLICA appears specially to make this motion only and, so specially
4
appearing, hereby does and will, on Thursday, May 25, 2023, at 9:00 AM, or as soon thereafter
5
6 as the matter may be heard, in dept. 5 of this court, located at 701 Ocean Street, Room 110, Santa
7 Cruz, CA 95060, move for an order quashing the service of summons on this cross-defendant. The
8
motion will be made on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over the person of this cross-
9
defendant. The motion will be based on this notice of motion, on the declaration of CODY
10
MOLICA and the supporting memorandum served and filed herewith, on the records and file
11
12 herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.
13 Date: February 23, 2023
14
15
___/S/ Cody Molica_________________
16 Cody Molica,
Cross-defendant in Pro Per
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH SUMMONS AGAINST CROSS DEFENDANT CODY MOLICA
1 Cody Molica
1029 North Road, #175
2
Westfield, MA 01085
3 (619) 693-7896
cmolica11@gmail.com
4
Defendant in Pro Per
5
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
9
JASON NEEL Case No.: 22CV01758
10
Plaintiff,
11
vs. DECLARATION OF CODY MOLICA IN
12 SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CODY
SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICING; ASSET MOLICA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
13 MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF
DEFAULT MANAGEMENT, INC., UNITED
14 SUMMONS
STATES REAL ESTATE CORPORATION;
15 CNA EQUITIES GROUP, LLC; AND DEPT. 5
RUSHMYFILE, BUSINESS ENTITY FORM ACTION FILED 08/16/2022
16 UNKNOWN, and VIGIL REAL ESTATE, HON. TIMOTHY VOLKMANN
17 BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. HEARING: 5/25/23
18 TIME: 9AM
19 UNLIMITED CIVIL ACTION
UNITED STATES REAL ESTATE
20 CORPORATION, Cross-Complainant,
21
v.
22
23 JASON NEEL, CNA EQUITY GROUP, INC, a
professional corporation, RUSHMYFILE, INC,
24 a California corporation, CODY MOLICA, and
25 ROES 1-50, inclusive,
26 Cross-Defendants.
27
28 1
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUMMONS
1
2
I, Cody Molica, declares as follows:
3
1. I am the cross-defendant in this action by way of a cross-complaint brought by
4
UNITED STATES REAL ESTATE CORPORATION.
5
6 2. I have not since September of 2022 resided at 4360 Stony Point Road, Santa Rosa,
7 California. This is the address cited as my residence in the proof of service filed in this
8
case on January 17, 2023.
9
3. I was erroneously served at this address by substitute service during January of 2023.
10
11
12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California the
13 forgoing is true and correct.
14
February 24, 2023
15
16
CODY /S/ MOLICA
17
18 Cody Molica, Cross-Defendant
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUMMONS
1 Cody Molica
1029 North Road, #175
2
Westfield, MA 01085
3 (619) 693-7896
cmolica11@gmail.com
4
Defendant in Pro Per
5
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
9
JASON NEEL Case No.: 22CV01758
10
Plaintiff,
11
vs. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
12 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
SUPERIOR LOAN SERVICING; ASSET DEFENDANT CODY MOLICA’S NOTICE
13 OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH
DEFAULT MANAGEMENT, INC., UNITED
14 SERVICE OF SUMMONS
STATES REAL ESTATE CORPORATION;
15 CNA EQUITIES GROUP, LLC; AND DEPT. 5
RUSHMYFILE, BUSINESS ENTITY FORM ACTION FILED 08/16/2022
16 UNKNOWN, and VIGIL REAL ESTATE, HON. TIMOTHY VOLKMANN
17 BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. HEARING: 5/25/23
18 TIME: 9AM
19 UNLIMITED CIVIL ACTION
UNITED STATES REAL ESTATE
20 CORPORATION, Cross-Complainant,
21
v.
22
23 JASON NEEL, CNA EQUITY GROUP, INC, a
professional corporation, RUSHMYFILE, INC,
24 a California corporation, CODY MOLICA, and
25 ROES 1-50, inclusive,
26 Cross-Defendants.
27
28 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUMMONS
1 Service is Defective
2
On 1/17/2023, attorney for defendant and cross complainant filed a proof of service of
3
summons in this action documenting service of process against the movant and cross-defendant
4
Cody Molica. Substitute service was made on a “Jane Doe” occupant residing in Santa Rosa,
5
6 California. The process server’s attached declaration of diligence states another occupant
7 informed the server in his first service attempt that Cody Molica did not live here.
8
As the attached declaration substantiates, movant does not reside in Santa Rosa at all, the
9
service of summons was improperly documented to the court as being complete and this motion
10
should be granted quashing the defective substitute service upon the cross-defendant Cody Molica.
11
12
“On or before the last day of his or her time to plead, or within such further time as the
13 court may for good cause allow, a defendant may serve and file a notice of motion to
quash service of summons on the ground the court lacks jurisdiction over him or her
14
(Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10(a)(1)).”
15
California law makes strict compliance with the applicable statutes pertaining to service a
16
necessary element in order to complete substitute service. A court has no authority to render
17
18 judgment on the basis of substituted or constructive service of the summons when statutory
19 requirements have not been strictly complied with (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal. App.
20
4th 403, 412, 44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 338 (improper service on personal manager); Zirbes v. Stratton
21
(1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1407, 1416, 232 Cal. Rptr. 653 (substituted service); Eagle Electric Mfg.
22
Co. v. Keener (1966) 247 Cal. App. 2d 246, 251, 55 Cal. Rptr. 444.
23
24 In order to effect proper substitute service upon a defendant, plaintiff must comply with the
25 applicable statute which requires after reasonable attempts to serve the defendant personally at his
26
residence, serving the documents upon another co-occupant. What has transpired however is
27
cross-complainant served cross-defendant Molica at his prior residence, upon an unknown
28 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUMMONS
1 occupant. Because the statute was not strictly complied with, this motion to quash should be
2
granted.
3
February 24, 2023
4
5
6 CODY /S/ MOLICA
7 Cody Molica, Cross-Defendant
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUMMONS