Defendant William Paioni's Motion to Quash Service of Summons Pursuant to CCP 418.10; Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice
in light of all available information. (Townsend v. Superior Court (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424).
Consequently, the Court CONTINUES this matter to August 12, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court for said meet and confer. The parties are further ordered to then file a joint statement by August 5, 2026, describing the efforts to meet-and-confer and any narrowing or resolution of the issues. Should counsel for the parties be unable to compromise, then they are directed to report in person at the continued hearing date and time and to come with the expectation of spending several hours further meeting and conferring face-to-face at the courthouse. (I borrowed this from Monica's TR).
CV-25-009145 - VARGAS, JOSEPH vs PAIONI, WILLIAM - Defendant William Paioni's Motion to Quash Service of Summons Pursuant to CCP 418.10 - GRANTED.
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 Sec. 647).
Even if the Court were to find that that Plaintiff has discharged its burden of demonstrating statutorily compliant effective service of its Writ of Summons and Complaint herein upon Defendant herein, the effect of a notice of motion to quash service of process is to place upon the plaintiff the burden of proving facts that gave the court jurisdiction, that is, facts requisite to an effective service. (Code of Civ Procedure sections 415.10 and 415.20; Coulston v Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866).
Furthermore, a party's declaration of non-service, if credited by the trial court, can rebut the presumption of proper service established by the return of a registered process server. (Fernandes v. Singh, (2017), 16 Cal. App. 5th 932 as modified on denial of reh'g (Nov. 2, 2017)
The Court finds Defendant' declaration in conjunction with Plaintiff's concession that the Writ of Summons and Complaint were served upon Defendant's estranged wife sufficient to rebut the presumption of service. (Fernandes v. Singh, (2017), 16 Cal. App. 5th 932 as modified on denial of reh'g (Nov. 2, 2017); American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara App. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 38
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?”
Additionally, assuming that actual notice could amount to valid service based on a finding of substantial compliance over a Defendant's objection that service did not comply with statutory requirements, in view of the fact that the record does not show partial or colorable compliance with the requirement of service on Defendant at his "dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of their office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age" the Court finds ineffective service herein and that the court therefore lacks jurisdiction over Defendant. (Civ.
Proc. Code Sec.Sec. 415.10 and 415.20; American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara, supra, at p. 391).
Defendant's motion is therefore granted. The purported service of Plaintiff's Writ of Summons and Complaint on Defendant William Paioni is hereby quashed. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 418.10)
Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice is granted. (Evidence Code Sec. 452 (d)).
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:
***There are no tentative rulings in Department 19***