Motion – Quash Service of Summons
Defendant Richard Freitas’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is denied.
Background
Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. commenced this action against Defendant on October 22, 2025, seeking to recover $12,354.75 allegedly owed on a credit account. The complaint alleges a single cause of action for breach of contract.
The proof of service filed on April 23, 2026 states that registered process server Ivery Rodriguez personally served Defendant on April 20 at 6:10 p.m. at 23 Oak Lane, Corte Madera. The process server describes the details of service as follows:
I delivered the documents to RICHARD J FREITAS with identity confirmed by subject reaching for docs when named. The individual accepted service with direct delivery. The individual appeared to be a gray-haired white male contact 45-55 years of age, 5’10”-6’0” tall and weighing 200-240 lbs with a beard, glasses and a mustache.
Defendant moves to quash service of summons on the grounds that “service of the summons and complaint has not been properly effectuated and the Court therefore lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant.” (See Notice of Motion.)
Discussion
“’Compliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. ...’ ...” (Kremerman v. White (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 358, 371, brackets
omitted.) The proof of service states that the process server personally served Defendant, which is proper pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10.
“The return of a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.” (Evid. Code, § 647; see also Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795
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 presumption affecting the burden of proof places on the party against whom it operates the obligation to establish by evidence the requisite degree of belief concerning the nonexistence of the presumed fact in the mind of the trier of fact or the court; in other words, the affirmative obligation to prove it false by a preponderance of the evidence, unless a different standard of proof is required by law. ...” (Farr v. County of Nevada (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 669, 681.)
To prove that it is false that he was personally served, Defendant states in his supporting declaration:
3. Proper service was not effectuated of the summons and complaint.
4. The process server did not identify herself to the individual who allegedly received the documents.
5. The process server did not ask the individual for their name or relationship to me.
6. The process server did not verify whether the individual was authorized to accept service on my behalf.
7. I am informed and believe that the documents were merely handed to an unidentified individual without proper inquiry or verification.
8. Because the recipient’s identity and authority were never established, the purported service is defective and invalid.
Defendant’s evidence is insufficient to overcome the presumption that he was personally served. The address on Defendant’s papers is the same as the address set forth in the proof of service. Defendant does not expressly deny that he was the individual to whom the process server handed the papers. Nor does Defendant offer any evidence that the description of the individual who reached for the papers when the process server said Defendant’s name does not match Defendant’s description.
For these reasons, the Motion to Quash Service of Summons is denied.
All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.
The Zoom appearance information for June 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/1615487764?pwd=Ob4B5J7LLKcpnkxzJjjEOSHNzEGafG.1 Meeting ID: 161 548 7764 Passcode: 502070
If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov