MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Thursday, June 25, 2026, Line 1.
2 - Defendant Thaddeus Doyka's Motion to Quash Service of Process is GRANTED. Plaintiff has the evidentiary burden to demonstrate proper service and sufficient minimum contacts to warrant this court's exercise of jurisdiction. (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1440 ["[T]he burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service"].)
Plaintiff Jonathan Robinson maintains that he substitute served Doyka on July 13, 2025. Substitute service is authorized if personal service cannot be accomplished with reasonable diligence. (CCP section 415.20(b).) First, upon challenge, plaintiff must demonstrate he attempted personal service with "reasonable diligence." (CCP section 415.20(b); see Evartt v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 795, 801.) Two or three attempts at personal service ordinarily suffice. (Stafford v. Mach (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) Second, plaintiff must establish substitute service by demonstrating he left the papers with a competent adult apparently in charge at the person's homes, usual place of business or usual mailing address other than a USPS box. (CCP section 415.20(b).)
Plaintiff's purported service is defective. First, the process server fails to show personal service attempts. (Simons Decl., Ex. 9 [Castillo Decl.].) Second, plaintiff does not demonstrate that the Rancho Mirage address is defendant's "usual place of business" within the meaning of CCP 415.20(b). At most, plaintiff has shown that (1) defendant was less than truthful when he previously stated that "I do not conduct any business at that address" and (2) he is affiliated with Gray Holdings, Inc., which lists the Rancho Mirage address. (Simons Decl., Ex. 3, 1:27-28; Ex. 6.) Notwithstanding defendant's lack of credibility, plaintiff still does not demonstrate that the address is defendant's "usual place of business."
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
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?”
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address.
=(302/JMQ) | |