Motion to Quash Service of Summons
The Court QUASHES the Writ of Possession and CANCELS the lockout.
The Court Clerk is to notify the Orange County Sheriff’s Department that the Writ of Possession is Quashed and the Lockout canceled.
The Defendant is ordered to file an Answer today (6/12/26) no later than 4 PM at the Clerk’s office.
The Court Clerk is to notify the parties of the Court’s ruling.
16 30-2026-0156393 The Court has read and considered the Defendants’ Demurrer to the Park II Spectrum LLC Complaint (ROA 24), the Complaint (ROA 2) and the Plaintiff’s Opposition vs. Chen (ROA 28).
The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer.
The Defendants are ordered to file an Answer within 5 calendar days.
The Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling. 17 30-2026-01564943 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer to the Hu vs. Holmes Complaint (ROA 15), the Complaint (ROA 2), and the Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 20).
The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer.
The Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 5 business days.
The Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling.
19 30-2026-01564523 The Court has read and considered the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Cooper Fellowship, Judgment/Adjudication (ROA 31), Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 28), Inc. vs. Gideon Declaration of Rick Bonner in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (ROA 32), and Plaintiff’s Reply to Opposition (ROA 50).
Based on the Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Opposition, the Court assumes an Opposition was at least served on the Plaintiff. No such Opposition has been filed with the Court. Given the issue – the Court will address this matter at the hearing on 6/12/2026.
20 30-2026-01570045 The Court has read and considered the Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service The Irvine Company of Summons (ROA 15). LLC vs. HafezKhorram The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Proof of Service of Summons (ROA 8, 12, & 14) and the Proof of Service of Summons & Complaint – Unnamed Occupants (ROA 10).
Service was effectively implemented by a registered process server, Yesica Romero Hernandez (PS-002415). Akhtar HafezKhorram and Shahram Mohebbi were served by substitute service on May 24, 2026, at 1:18 PM by the registered process server providing the Summons and other documents to
Altar Horam, occupant, and mailing. (ROA 8 & 12) Attached to the Proofs of Service was a declaration of due diligence of prior attempts at personal service. The declaration of due diligence states that Ms. Horam identified herself as the mother of Shiva Mohebbi and contained a description of Ms. Horam. Shiva Mohebbi was personally served on May 19, 2026, at 4:21 PM (ROA 14). California Evidence Code Section 647 creates a rebuttable presumption that a proof of service signed by a registered process server is true. It shifts the burden of proving lack of service to the defendant, rather than requiring the plaintiff to prove proper service. Defendants have provided no evidence to rebut the presumption under Evidence Code Section 647 other than their own self-serving statements that Shiva was not personally served and that the documents were left at the door.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendants argue that Akhtar HafezKhorram and Shahram Mohebbi are not residents of the premises address but were simply signers of the lease as “cosigners/guarantors,” but provide no evidence to support this claim, such as the lease agreement showing that they signed as guarantors and are not listed as occupants/tenants of the property. Case law such as Zirbes v. Stratton (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1407, 1416-1417 allows for substituted service, which is reasonably calculated to give notice – the circumstances here are reasonable that it would give notice to the Defendant.
The Court DENIES the Defendants' Motion to Quash.
Defendants are ordered to file a responsive pleading within 5 business days.
The Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.