Motion of Defendant Luis Marengo To Quash Service of Summons
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING
LINE 3 25CV461733 Discover Bank v. Luis Marengo Motion of Defendant Luis Marengo To Quash Service of Summons. The motion is GRANTED. SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. By appearing on a contested tentative ruling, you will be presumed to have read the Bannerhead at the top of this Tentative Ruling Page and the paragraph on “Civility.”
LINE 4 25CV463973 Svetlana Tassel v. Old Orchard School Motion of Plaintiff for Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion of Defendant to Quash Service of Subpoena (Code Of Civil Procedure, § 1008). The motion is DENIED. SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. By appearing on a contested tentative ruling, you will be presumed to have read the Bannerhead at the top of this Tentative Ruling Page and the paragraph on “Civility.”
LINE 5 25CV466751 City of Campbell v. Jeffrey Via Motion of Petitioner City of Campbell to Seal Records etc. The Petition Is GRANTED in its entirety. Counsel for Petitioner City of Campbell is to prepare an appropriate order for execution by this Court By appearing on a contested tentative ruling, you will be presumed to have read the Bannerhead at the top of this Tentative Ruling Page and the paragraph on “Civility.”
LINE 6 25CV469820 Ying Wang v. The John Stuart Co.; HomeFirst Motion of Defendant HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara Services of Santa Clara County; Betty Ann County to Compel Plaintiff Ying Wang To Provide Further Gardens Leasing Office; Joanna Flores Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions. The motion of Motion of Defendant HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara County to Compel Plaintiff Ying Wang To Provide Further Response to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is to submit code compliant responses within 20 days of the filing and service of this order. The request of Defendant HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara County monetary sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a special motion for sanctions. SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. By appearing on a contested tentative ruling, you will be presumed to have read the Bannerhead at the top of this Tentative Ruling Page and the paragraph on “Civility.”
Calendar Line 3 Superior Court, State Of California County Of Santa Clara Department 1
161 North First Street, San Jose, Ca 95113 408.882.2330 Department21@scscourt.org http://www.scscourt.org (For Clerk's Use Only)
Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian is covering for Judge Eunice Lee on 30 June and on 02 July 2026
Case No.: 25CV461733 Discover Bank v. Luis Marengo Date: 30 June 2026 9:00 am Line Number: 03 ----oooOooo--- Motion of Defendant Luis Marengo To Quash Service of Summons. The motion is unopposed.
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?”
On 20 July 2025, Defendant Luis Marengo filed a motion to quash service of summons and complaint. He filed a proof of service On 29 July 2025 and 13 August 2025, Mr. Marengo filed a proof of electronic service of his motion to quash on plaintiff’s counsel on 7/29/25. Plaintiff’s opposition to this motion was due on 16 June 2026 factoring the Juneteenth holiday. 6/16/26 (due to court holiday). No opposition has been filed as of 28 June 2026 at 10:29 PM.
Personal jurisdiction over a defendant depends on valid service of process (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413). A defendant may challenge defective service by filing a motion to quash, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, § 418.10(a)(1). Once the defendant contests service, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show proper service through competent evidence. (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439.). [“[W]here a defendant properly moves to quash service of summons the burden is on the plaintiff to prove facts requisite to the effective service.” (Sheard v. Superior Court (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 207, 211.)
As Plaintiff has the burden of showing proper service through competent evidence and has not opposed the motion, the motion of Defendant to quash service of process is GRANTED. Defendant is to send a copy of this order to counsel for Plaintiff.
___________________________ ____________________________________________ DATED: HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County Of Santa Clara