Azadzoi vs. Chattha

Item No. 14: Fees for the electronic filing or service of documents through an electronic filing provider are recoverable if a court requires or orders electronic filing or service of documents. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, subd. (a)(14).) Defendant disputes $116.37 of the $532.12 sought, as not supported by the receipts. However, Defendant did not include the amounts charged for court technology access fee ($2.25) and convenience fees ($0.62) for each e-filing, which costs the Court finds reasonable. The motion is therefore DENIED for this item.

Item No. 15: Plaintiff withdraws this itemized cost. The motion is thus GRANTED for this item in the amount of $3,559.75.

In sum, costs shall be reduced by $22,837.75 and the total amount awarded is $40,852.95.

Defendant shall provide notice of this ruling. 2 Azadzoi vs. Specially appearing defendant Asif Chattha’s (“Defendant” for this Chattha ruling) unopposed Motion to Quash (“Motion”) service of summons is GRANTED.

A defendant may move to quash summons pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code § 418.10(a)(1). “When a defendant challenges the court's 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 v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 403, 413; Dill v. Berquist Constr. Co. (1994) 24 Cal. App. 4th 1426, 1439–40.)

Defendant has challenged the court’s jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process by producing declarations supporting that neither Defendant nor a competent member of his household were personally served the summons and complaint at Defendant’s dwelling house or usual place of abode as stated in the proof of service. Pro per plaintiffs Barnosh Azadzoi and Megan Azadzoi (“Plaintiffs”) did not oppose the Motion and therefore have not met their burden of showing proper service or the existence of the court’s jurisdiction.

The Motion is granted.

Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to September 4, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.

Defendant to give notice. 3 Young v. The motion of defendants Garden Grove HY LLC, Ally Bank, and Garden Grove Great American Insurance Company (collectively, Defendants) to HY LLC compel arbitration of the claims of plaintiff Sammie Young II (Plaintiff) is GRANTED.

On a motion to compel arbitration, the moving party bears the burden of proving the existence of an applicable agreement and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense. (See Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th