Motion for Leave to file FAC
issue in this case. (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1110-1111 [general discussion].) "In the absence of a voluntary submission to the authority of the court, compliance with the statutes governing service of process is essential to establish that court's personal jurisdiction over a defendant." (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439 (Dill).) "Except as otherwise provided by statute, the court in which an action is pending has jurisdiction over a party from the time summons is served on him as provided by Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10)." (Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 410.50, subd. (a); see also Sternbeck v. Buck (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 829, 832 ["[s]ervice of summons in conformance with the mode prescribed by statute is deemed jurisdictional"].) "A judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction of the person where there is no proper service of process on or appearance by a party to the proceedings." (David B. v. Superior Court (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1016.) Subject to exception, "the filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper." (Dill, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 1441.)
Court records reflect that on July 3, 2025, plaintiff filed with the court, a proof of service of, among other documents, the summons and complaint by personal delivery of those documents at the address reflected in that proof of service. (Jul. 3, 2025, Proof at P.P. 4, 5(a).) That proof of service identifies the party served as "Pan-Oceanic Eyewear, LTD", and the person served on behalf of that entity or as an authorized agent as "Jae Hall" at "CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service". (Id. at P. 3(a), (b).)
Even if the court assumes without deciding that the proof of service described above is sufficient to show valid service of the summons on Pan Eyewear in a manner authorized pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 413.10 et seq. (and the court presently makes no findings in this regard), the court has no record showing valid service of the summons and complaint on Pan Oceanic, notwithstanding that motion requests an order entering judgment against that entity. "A general appearance by a party is equivalent to personal service of summons on such party." (Code Civ.
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?”
Proc., Sec. 410.50, subd. (a).) There is also no information or evidence showing that Pan Oceanic made a general appearance in this action, including by seeking affirmative relief or otherwise participating in these proceedings. (Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1029; see also Roy v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 337, 341 [general discussion].) The motion also does not explain why the signing of either the Settlement Agreement or the Stipulation by the "CEO" of Pan Oceanic constitutes a general appearance by that defendant in this case. (See also Canaan Taiwanese Christian Church v.
All World Mission Ministries (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1115, 1127 [same].)
It also appears that the present motion was not served on Pan Oceanic. For example, the proof of service of the motion filed with the court on April 24, 2026, shows that the motion was served on Pan Eyewear. The court has no record showing that the motion was served on Pan Oceanic. "Knowledge by a defendant of an action will not satisfy the requirement of adequate service of a summons and complaint." (County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1226.) In circumstances where, such as here, the court's fundamental personal jurisdiction over a party is lacking, "there is an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case." (Id. at p. 1225.)
For all reasons discussed above, the present record shows or suggests that the court has not acquired personal jurisdiction over Pan Oceanic. The motion fails to show why the court may, under those circumstances, exercise its power to impose or enter judgment against Pan Oceanic or determine the present motion. Therefore, and for these reasons, the court will deny the motion, without prejudice to its refiling upon the satisfaction by plaintiff of the requirements for proper service of process on Pan Oceanic as further discussed herein, or otherwise explaining, with reasoned argument, why the court may exercise its authority under the circumstances present here.
Tentative Ruling: Francisco Bueno vs City of Santa Barbara Tentative Ruling: Francisco Bueno vs City of Santa Barbara Case Number 25CV05699 Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 06/12/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings CMC; Motion for Leave Tentative Ruling On September 11, 2025, plaintiff Francisco Bueno filed the original complaint in this action against defendants City of Santa Barbara (City) and County of Santa Barbara (County). On November 3, 2025, City filed its answer to the complaint generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 16 affirmative defenses.
On December 12, 2025, Bueno requested, and the court entered, dismissal as to County. On January 15, 2026, Bueno filed two "Doe" amendments identifying defendants Cox Communications California LLC, and Frontier Communications Corporate Services, Inc., as Does 1 and 2, respectively. On March 27, 2026, Bueno filed this motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC). On May 27, 2026, Bueno filed an errata to the motion for leave to correct the name of the Frontier entity defendant. No opposition or other response has been filed to the motion.
The motion for leave to file a FAC is granted. Bueno shall file and serve the FAC, in substantially the same form as attached to the errata to the motion, on or before June 22, 2026.
Tentative Ruling: G Eric Kuskey vs Salvatore A Garofalo et al Tentative Ruling: G Eric Kuskey vs Salvatore A Garofalo et al Case Number 25CV05845 Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/22/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings CMC; Demurrers and Motions to Strike Tentative Ruling On the Court's own motion, the Case Management Conference, Demurrers and Motions to Strike on calendar for Friday, May 22, 2026, at 10 am in Dept. 4 are continued to Friday, July 10, 2026, at 10 am in Dept. 4
Tentative Ruling: Mark Davis vs EF Santa Barbara School et al Tentative Ruling: Mark Davis vs EF Santa Barbara School et al Case Number 25CV07580 Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 05/29/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings CMC; Demurrer Tentative Ruling On December 5, 2025, plaintiff Mark Davis filed the original complaint in this action. On February 6, 2026, defendants EF Santa Barbara School, Miles Hogan, and Kristy Sinclair filed their demurrer to the original complaint. On April 24, 2026, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, which was served on May 1. The demurrer