PINEDA v. TRC INVESTMENTS LLC
CASE NO.: VC065033
HEARING: 08/18/16
JUDGE: M. BERNAL
#8
TENTATIVE ORDER
Specially-appearing defendant VICTOR ACEVEDO’s motion to quash service is DENIED. C.C.P. § 418.10.
Defendant has 20 days to serve and file a responsive pleading.
Plaintiff GERBACIO PINEDA filed the subject complaint in September 2015. On April 26, 2016, plaintiff filed an Amendment naming the moving defendant as Doe 11.
According to the proof of service (filed 06/16/16), defendant Acevedo was served by way of substituted service on June 3, 2016. He seeks to quash service on the ground that the April 2016 Amendment was not served along with the summons and complaint. See Acevedo decl.
In opposition, plaintiff contests that fact, and argues that he is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that service, effected by a registered process server, is valid. Evid. Code §647.
Even if defendant’s sworn declaration was sufficient to rebut the presumption, the Court notes that de
Hearing Date
August 18, 2016
Type
Other Commercial/Business Tort (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
PINEDA v. TRC INVESTMENTS LLC
CASE NO.: VC065033
HEARING: 08/18/16
JUDGE: M. BERNAL
#8
TENTATIVE ORDER
Specially-appearing defendant VICTOR ACEVEDO’s motion to quash service is DENIED. C.C.P. § 418.10.
Defendant has 20 days to serve and file a responsive pleading.
Plaintiff GERBACIO PINEDA filed the subject complaint in September 2015. On April 26, 2016, plaintiff filed an Amendment naming the moving defendant as Doe 11.
According to the proof of service (filed 06/16/16), defendant Acevedo was served by way of substituted service on June 3, 2016. He seeks to quash service on the ground that the April 2016 Amendment was not served along with the summons and complaint. See Acevedo decl.
In opposition, plaintiff contests that fact, and argues that he is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that service, effected by a registered process server, is valid. Evid. Code §647.
Even if defendant’s sworn declaration was sufficient to rebut the presumption, the Court notes that de