Motion to Quash Service of Summons
25CV027235: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs MARTINEZ 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 16D
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.
The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.
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?”
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with
25CV027235: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs MARTINEZ 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 16D
a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING:
*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***
*** The Court finds in its file no proof of service demonstrating moving defendants service of the Notice of Disclosure issued on 1/6/2026, despite being directed to serve all other parties with the Notice of Disclosure forthwith. Moving defendant is directed to serve the Notice of Disclosure on all other parties forthwith and to file proof of service within five (5) court days. ***
Defendant in pro per Martinezs motion to quash plaintiffs purported service of summons on 12/17/2025 is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED, as follows.
Factual Background
This debt collection action was commenced in November 2025. Plaintiff filed on 12/23/2025 a proof of service attesting to personal service of the summons & complaint on defendant Martinez himself on 12/17/2025 at his residence.
Defendant Martinez now moves to quash plaintiffs purported service of summons & complaint on 12/17/2025 on the grounds that defendant Martinez was not home at the time of the purported service and summons & complaint were actually handed to defendants 17-year-old son, who was neither authorized to accept service on behalf of defendant nor old enough to accept service. As support for his contentions, defendant proffers not only a declaration by his son (who attests to being served with the summons & complaint on 12/17/2025 when his father was not present) but also a video recording from defendants Ring doorbell camera (which purports to show defendants son being served with the summons & complaint on 12/17/2025 when his father was not present).
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV027235: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs MARTINEZ 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 16D
The Court finds that plaintiff did not file any opposition or other written objection to the present motion to quash and this lack of opposition is construed as a concession on the merits of this motion. (See, e.g., D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)
Discussion
At the outset, while plaintiffs filing of its proof of service on 12/23/2025 may give rise to a presumption of valid service on a defendant Martinez, Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403 expressly places the ultimate burden of proof on this critical issue on the plaintiff whenever there is a challenge to the validity of such service. Relying on Dill v. Berquist Construction Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, the Summers Court stated:
When a defendant challenges the courts personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service. (Summers, at 413.)
Additionally, California law requires that the plaintiff prove valid service and personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. (Floveyer Intl., Ltd. v. Superior Court (Schick Tube-Veyor Corp. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 793-794.)
Plaintiff here has not met its burden of proving valid personal service of the summons & complaint on defendant Martinez on 12/17/2025 by a preponderance of the evidence. First, as noted above, plaintiff did not file any opposition or other written objection to the present motion and the Court has construed this lack of opposition as a concession on the merits of this motion. (See, e.g., D.I. Chadbourne, Inc., supra, 60 Cal.2d at 728, n.4.) Second, by failing to file any opposition to this motion, plaintiff has necessarily failed to proffer any evidence whatsoever which might otherwise have satisfied its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the summons & complaint were personally served on defendant Martinez at his residence on 12/17/2025.
As such, defendant Martinezs own evidence tending to show that the purported personal service on 12/17/2025 was not valid remains uncontradicted, thereby justifying an order quashing plaintiffs purported service of summons & complaint on 12/17/2025.
Disposition
For the reasons explained above, defendant Martinezs present motion to quash plaintiffs purported service of the summons & complaint on defendant Martinez on 12/17/2025 is GRANTED.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV027235: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs MARTINEZ 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 16D
Defendant Martinez need not respond to the summons & complaint unless and until duly served in conformity with the requirements of California law.
Defendant Martinez to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)