Motion to Quash Service of Summons
CASE NUMBER: 26CV-0210067 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Quash Service of Summons: Defendant Jacob Lickliter moves to quash service of summons. Plaintiff Lisa Hall opposes the motion.
Plaintiff filed Proof of Service of Summons on May 7, 2026 indicating that Defendant was served by personal service on May 5, 2026 at 5:34 p.m. with the note “I delivered the documents to Jacob Lickliter with identity confirmed by subject stating yes when named. The individual accepted service with direct delivery. The individual appeared to be a while male contact 45-55 years of age, 6’0”-6”2” tall and weighting 200-240 lbs.” Service was accomplished by Kristie Butler who checked Item 7.e.(1) indicting that she is not a registered California process server. The Proof of Service of Summons was signed under penalty of perjury on May 5, 2026 and complies with CCP § 2015.5.
In the moving papers, Defendant argues that he was not home at the alleged time of service and that the documents were actually served on his wife. This is not provided in his declaration. Instead, Defendant provides that he “was not served in the matter described in the Proof of Service.” Defendant Decl. ¶ 6. Defendant does not state how or when he received the papers. His declaration focuses on his employment with Corinth Coca-Cola Bottling Group and the Motus Application. A screenshot of his Motus Application is provided that Defendant asserts provides a portion of his afternoon on May 5, 2026 and shows that he did not arrive home from work until 6:00 p.m.
In the Reply, Defendant provided an email from counsel that attaches an email that counsel asserts is from Defendant’s supervisor. While the general rule is that evidence should not be submitted with a Reply, the Court has discretion to consider evidence submitted with a Reply so long as the opposing party is provided notice and an opportunity to be heard. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Torres Construction Corp. (2020) 57 Cal. App. 5th 480, 499. In this instance, the Court considers the evidence, but does not admit it. This email is hearsay with no exception. There is no declaration provided by the supervisor.
Plaintiff argues that the presumption in Evid. Code § 647
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?”
The competent evidence before the Court is the Proof of Service of Summons and Defendant’s Declaration. The Court does not find that the screenshot from the Motus Application has been properly authenticated. Even if it were, the timeframe at issue is less than thirty minutes. Defendant provided no evidence of how he received the papers and makes no mention of his wife in his declaration. Defendant did not provide a declaration from his wife. When balancing this against the statements in the Proof of Service of Summons, the Court finds that Defendant has not met his burden. Defendant has been properly served.
The Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED. Defendant provided a proposed order that will be modified to reflect the Court’s ruling.
IN RE J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC