Hitachi Vantara LLC vs Data Dynamics, Inc.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: May 12, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS LINE 6 25CV467451 Hitachi Vantara Motion to Quash LLC vs Data On July 24, 2025, defendant Data Dynamics, Inc. filed a motion to quash Dynamics, Inc. service of summons. No proof of service was filed. On March 13, 2026, the parties stipulated and sought to continue this hearing to today’s date, which the Court granted. No opposition papers were filed. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) opposition papers were due on April 29, 2026. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. California Rule of Court Rule 8.54c. Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the plaintiff has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489).

“ ‘[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction.’ ” (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544). Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, if a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person being served, substitute service may be effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s “dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address . . . in the presence of . . . a person apparently in charge . . . and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail . . . to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).) Where service was by a registered process server, Evidence Code section 647 applies to accord a presumption as to the facts stated in the proof of service. (Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1425-1427).

The moving party meets its burden of proof and the motion is unopposed. The Court GRANTS the defendant’s motion to quash service of summons. Moving party to prepare the formal Order.

4