Preview
Case Number: 20-CIV-05770
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
400 County Center 1050 Mission Road
Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA
94080
www.sanmateocourt.org
Minute Order
Edgewater Holding Corporation vs. Xiaozheng Ye, et al 20-CIV-05770
08/10/2021 2:00 PM
Motion to Quash
Hearing Result: Held
Judicial Officer: Fineman, Nancy L. Location: Courtroom N
Courtroom Clerk: Ashmika Segran-Teo Courtroom Reporter: Rosa DeNola
Minutes
Journals
- Matter was called at: 2:02 pm.
Counsel William Logan for Plaintiff appeared via Zoom.
Counsel Logan notified the Court that he is not contesting this motion.
Hearing concluded at: 2:03 pm.
**********
Counsel Rami Kayyali for Defendant appeared late via Zoom.
Counsel was notified that the court had adopted the tentative ruling.
Counsel to contact the Plaintiff's counsel and if any issues to e-mail Dept. 4.
Case Events
- Party appeared by audio and/or video; Above noted counsel
- Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order:
MOTION FOR ORDER QUASHING SUMMONS BY XIAOZHENG YE AND QINGQING
LU
Specially Appearing Defendants Xiaozheng Ye’s and QingQing Lu’s ’ Motion to Quash
Summons is DENIED.
When a defendant challenges the Court’s jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden
is on the plaintiff to establish the facts requisite to jurisdiction. Dill v. Berquist Construction Co.,
(1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-1440. Service of process statutes are generally construed
liberally, but there must be at least substantial compliance with the statutory requisites for
service. Lebel v. Mai, (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1165. If a copy of the summons and of the
complaint “cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served”
… another type of substituted service may be used. Witkin, March 2020 Update, California
Procedure, Fifth Edition, §1011; Code of Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b).
1
Case Number: 20-CIV-05770
The Sevilla Decl., ¶3, Ex. B, establishes that Plaintiffs employed a process server, Ameer Aziz,
who made attempts to serve Defendants Ye and Lu on three separate days, at differing times, at
Defendants last known address, 20 Port Royal Avenue, Foster City, California 94404, and
determined that the occupants seemed to be in the process of moving based on the residence
appearing vacant. Plaintiffs also made two attempts in February and March 2021 to receive
Notices of Acknowledgement via email contact at an email address Defendant Lu had used to
correspond with Plaintiffs. Id at ¶2-3. Plaintiffs then investigated whether Defendants had a new
business or residence in California and were unable to locate one. Id at ¶4. These efforts show a
diligent effort to effect physical delivery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §416.90.
Specially appearing Defendants argue that 1256 Formosa Dr., San Jose, CA 95131 is not
Defendants usual mailing address per Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b), and that Defendant
Lu’s November 11, 2020 email shows “that Grace's only role was to deliver the premises key to
the plaintiff landlord and meet with the landlord. They contend that Grace was never designated
as defendants' agent for service of process or mail forwarding address.” Reply, 2:5-7. The Court
finds otherwise after a review of the evidence. That email states
“My friend Grace Li will be there representing me since I’m in China. And here is Grace’s home
address as forwarding address: 1256 Formosa Dr. San Jose, CA 95131.” Chen Decl., Ex. F, p.1.
That came in response to Ms. Chen’s earlier email that same day requesting that Defendant Amy
Lu “please provide your new address for notice and forwarding address.” Id., p. 2. In that
context, Defendant’s designation of Grace’s address as a forwarding address established itas a
usual mailing address as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b), and physical delivery
was accomplished. The authenticity of the email is confirmed because the email stated that
Grace Li would meet Plaintiff’s representative to provide the key and that exchange occurred.
Chen Decl. ¶¶ 7-9, Ex. F.
The Campos Decl. establishes that on April 13, 2021 the declarant mailed copies of the
Summons, Complaint, Notice of Assignment, Notice of Case Management Conference, a blank
Case Management Statement on form CM-l 10, and ADR Information Packet by placing the
copies in sealed envelopes addressed to each defendant at 1256 Formosa Drive, San Jose,
California 95131, and depositing the sealed envelopes with the United States Postal Service with
postage prepaid. Campos Decl., ¶2. This demonstrates compliance with the mailing requirement
of Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b).
Plaintiff has therefore established the facts requisite to jurisdiction.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel
for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s
signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the
ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules
of Court.
Others
Comments:
Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings
September 13, 2021 9:00 AM Case Management Conference
Courtroom P
Case Management Conferences, -
2
Preview
Case Number: 20-CIV-05770 SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 400 County Center 1050 Mission Road Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080 www.sanmateocourt.org Minute Order Edgewater Holding Corporation vs. Xiaozheng Ye, et al 20-CIV-05770 08/10/2021 2:00 PM Motion to Quash Hearing Result: Held Judicial Officer: Fineman, Nancy L. Location: Courtroom N Courtroom Clerk: Ashmika Segran-Teo Courtroom Reporter: Rosa DeNola Minutes Journals - Matter was called at: 2:02 pm. Counsel William Logan for Plaintiff appeared via Zoom. Counsel Logan notified the Court that he is not contesting this motion. Hearing concluded at: 2:03 pm. ********** Counsel Rami Kayyali for Defendant appeared late via Zoom. Counsel was notified that the court had adopted the tentative ruling. Counsel to contact the Plaintiff's counsel and if any issues to e-mail Dept. 4. Case Events - Party appeared by audio and/or video; Above noted counsel - Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order: MOTION FOR ORDER QUASHING SUMMONS BY XIAOZHENG YE AND QINGQING LU Specially Appearing Defendants Xiaozheng Ye’s and QingQing Lu’s ’ Motion to Quash Summons is DENIED. When a defendant challenges the Court’s jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the facts requisite to jurisdiction. Dill v. Berquist Construction Co., (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-1440. Service of process statutes are generally construed liberally, but there must be at least substantial compliance with the statutory requisites for service. Lebel v. Mai, (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1165. If a copy of the summons and of the complaint “cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served” … another type of substituted service may be used. Witkin, March 2020 Update, California Procedure, Fifth Edition, §1011; Code of Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b). 1 Case Number: 20-CIV-05770 The Sevilla Decl., ¶3, Ex. B, establishes that Plaintiffs employed a process server, Ameer Aziz, who made attempts to serve Defendants Ye and Lu on three separate days, at differing times, at Defendants last known address, 20 Port Royal Avenue, Foster City, California 94404, and determined that the occupants seemed to be in the process of moving based on the residence appearing vacant. Plaintiffs also made two attempts in February and March 2021 to receive Notices of Acknowledgement via email contact at an email address Defendant Lu had used to correspond with Plaintiffs. Id at ¶2-3. Plaintiffs then investigated whether Defendants had a new business or residence in California and were unable to locate one. Id at ¶4. These efforts show a diligent effort to effect physical delivery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §416.90. Specially appearing Defendants argue that 1256 Formosa Dr., San Jose, CA 95131 is not Defendants usual mailing address per Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b), and that Defendant Lu’s November 11, 2020 email shows “that Grace's only role was to deliver the premises key to the plaintiff landlord and meet with the landlord. They contend that Grace was never designated as defendants' agent for service of process or mail forwarding address.” Reply, 2:5-7. The Court finds otherwise after a review of the evidence. That email states “My friend Grace Li will be there representing me since I’m in China. And here is Grace’s home address as forwarding address: 1256 Formosa Dr. San Jose, CA 95131.” Chen Decl., Ex. F, p.1. That came in response to Ms. Chen’s earlier email that same day requesting that Defendant Amy Lu “please provide your new address for notice and forwarding address.” Id., p. 2. In that context, Defendant’s designation of Grace’s address as a forwarding address established itas a usual mailing address as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b), and physical delivery was accomplished. The authenticity of the email is confirmed because the email stated that Grace Li would meet Plaintiff’s representative to provide the key and that exchange occurred. Chen Decl. ¶¶ 7-9, Ex. F. The Campos Decl. establishes that on April 13, 2021 the declarant mailed copies of the Summons, Complaint, Notice of Assignment, Notice of Case Management Conference, a blank Case Management Statement on form CM-l 10, and ADR Information Packet by placing the copies in sealed envelopes addressed to each defendant at 1256 Formosa Drive, San Jose, California 95131, and depositing the sealed envelopes with the United States Postal Service with postage prepaid. Campos Decl., ¶2. This demonstrates compliance with the mailing requirement of Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b). Plaintiff has therefore established the facts requisite to jurisdiction. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. Others Comments: Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings September 13, 2021 9:00 AM Case Management Conference Courtroom P Case Management Conferences, - 2