Motion to Quash Purported Service of Summons and Complaint
26CV184658: MAHTABEH MA, LLC vs GUO 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Purported Service of Summons and Complaint; filed by Shun Guo (Defendant) CRS# 060806985891 in Department 511
Tentative Ruling - 07/07/2026 Lupe Garcia
The Motion to Quash Motion to Quash the Purported Service of Summons and Complaint filed by Shun Guo on 06/10/2026 is Granted.
NOTICE: All attorneys and unrepresented parties who contest the tentative ruling and request an opportunity to present their arguments at the hearing must notify all other parties of their intention to appear by telephone or in person no later than the day before the hearing, by 4:00 p.m. PT. Parties and attorneys must also formally indicate their objection on eCourt and by sending an email message to the Department 511 clerk at Dept511@alameda.courts.ca.gov. The parties and attorneys must clearly indicate in their email messages the name of the case and the case number. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the Court if the Court has not directed oral argument by its tentative ruling and notice of a partys intent to appear is not received by the deadline. See California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1) and Alameda County Superior Court Local Rule 3.30(d).
The motion of Specially Appearing Defendant Shun Guo (aka Daniel Guo) (dba Giant Bull Custom Auto House) to quash Plaintiffs substitute service of the summons, pursuant to CCP §§ 418.10(a)(1) and 1167.4, is GRANTED.
Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendant for commercial unlawful detainer on April 29, 2026. The property is located at 6995 Central Avenue, Unit C, in Newark. Plaintiffs two earlier Complaints against Defendant were dismissed prior to trial. In this case, Plaintiff filed its proof of service of summons on May 8, 2026. Plaintiffs registered process server, Len Warren, states under penalty of perjury that he successfully served Defendant Guo with the summons by substitute service on May 6, 2026.
Defendant Guo contends that Plaintiff has not met its burden of establishing proper service pursuant to CCP § 415.20
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?”
Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-1440. For civil actions pending in this Court, plaintiffs must establish that they attempted to serve the summons on defendants in person at least three times to show that they exercised reasonable diligence pursuant to CCP § 415.20(b). Plaintiffs process server states in his declaration of diligence that he tried to serve Defendant in person with the summons on May 1, 2026 and May 4, 2026, before he left the summons and other papers with a gentleman described as a 40-year-old Hispanic male approximately 59 and 170 lbs. on May 6, 2026, at 10:56 a.m.
The Court does not agree that Plaintiffs process server can simply hand the summons to someone at Defendants business if Defendant cannot be located on his third visit to 26CV184658: MAHTABEH MA, LLC vs GUO 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Purported Service of Summons and Complaint; filed by Shun Guo (Defendant) CRS# 060806985891 in Department 511 Defendants business. See Local Rule 3.50.
Counsel for Defendant is reminded again of his obligation to deliver courtesy copies of all law and motion filings to Department 511 no later than the court day after they are filed with the Clerks Office. Counsel shall review Rule 3.30(c) of the Alameda County Superior Court Local Rules and the Department 511 standing orders.
The Court will prepare the order. The court clerk will deliver a copy of the order to the parties. .Defendant shall file and serve the notice of entry of order no later than July 15, 2026.