BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. vs TABAN

6. The process server said, “I can leave it with you”;

23CV013451: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. vs TABAN 09/10/2024 Hearing on Motion for Order to Quash Service of Summons in Department 54

7. I said, “Okay, sure”;

8. The process server reached over and handed me the manila envelope and said, “Here you go, dear”;

9. We thanked each other, and I closed the door.

10. This interaction was captured by our Ring doorbell video camera. If needed, my husband can provide the video for viewing at the scheduled hearing date.

(Exhibit C to Motion, Declaration of Shaniqua Taban.)

Defendant submits his declaration. He states that on the date and at the time of the service, he was at his place of employment and completing his work day as his contract day ended at 3:30 p.m. (Exhibit A to Motion, Declaration of Oliver Taban, ¶ 5.) Defendant adds that “[o]n May 1, 2024, I learned by means of speaking with my wife that the summons and complaint in this case had been delivered to me by way of substitute service . . .” (Id., ¶ 3.) He further provides a “rough transcript of what is captured in the video.” (Id., ¶¶ 7-8.)

Plaintiff opposes the motion. It first objects to Defendant’s description of the video on the ground that it is barred by the secondary evidence rule. Plaintiff’s objection is SUSTAINED. Plaintiff also notes that Mrs. Taban’s declaration fails to specify that the process server did not ask her name.

Defendant did not file a reply to the opposition.

The requirements for substituted service pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20 are as follows:

If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, as specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, . . . in the presence of a competent member of the household . . . at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first- class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013451: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. vs TABAN 09/10/2024 Hearing on Motion for Order to Quash Service of Summons in Department 54

The affidavit provided by the process server supports a finding that the requirements for substituted service pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20 have been met. Evidence Code section 647 provides that the return of a registered process server “establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.” Defendant has not rebutted the presumption in favor of the facts averred by the process server.

Here, Defendant’s evidence admits that he lives at the address served. Whether Defendant’s wife identified herself as his wife/co-resident, or not, is of no import since Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20 provides that the summons and complaint may be left with “with a “competent member of the household” at least 18 years old, who must be told what the papers are. Here, Mrs. Taban admits that the process server gave her the package. Therefore, the summons and complaint were admittedly left with a competent member of the household.

Further, there is no evidence that the process server did not identify the contents of the packet. Indeed, Mrs. Taban’s declaration is silent as to whether the process server informed her of the contents thereof. Additionally, as noted in Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1436-1437, “[i]n deciding whether service was valid, the statutory provisions regarding service of process ‘ “ ‘ “should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by the defendant ....” ‘ “ ‘ (Pasadena Medi–Center Associates v.

Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.3d at p. 778, 108 Cal.Rptr. 828, 511 P.2d 1180.) Thus, substantial compliance is sufficient.” (Ibid.) Here, Plaintiff substantially complied with the statutory provisions regarding service of process and Defendant concedes that he received actual notice as he admits that on May 1, 2024, he learned from his wife that the summons and complaint had been served via substitute service.

Accordingly, the motion to quash is DENIED.

Defendant shall file a response to the pleading by no later than October 10, 2024.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013451: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. vs TABAN 09/10/2024 Hearing on Motion for Order to Quash Service of Summons in Department 54

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 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 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.

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 Court’s 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 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 Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.