GHASSEMINEZHAD vs GORDON G. BONES, ESQ., et al.

Plaintiff filed a “Declaration to Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Amended Complaint” (“Plaintiff Declaration”) on July 28, 2025. Plaintiff’s Declaration asserts, inter alia, that Defendant was properly served with the amended pleading and it does not object to this motion based on defective notice. Accordingly, Plaintiff has waived any defects in service and the Court will consider the merits of this motion.

Background

25CV013589: GHASSEMINEZHAD vs GORDON G. BONES, ESQ., et al. 08/05/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash 1st Amended Complaint in Department 54

This action concerns a fee dispute between Plaintiff Noelle Ghasseminezhad, (“Plaintiff”) and the Defendant, who is her former attorney. Plaintiff initiated this case on June 2, 2025 and filed her operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on July 22, 2025.

Defendant moves to quash pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to serve any summons with the FAC, only served a portion of the FAC on Defendant, and that the proof of service indicates that substitute service was attempted but fails to show that the mandatory mailing component was effectuated as required.

Legal Standard and Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1) allows a defendant “on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow” to file and service a notice of motion “[t]o quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” “A defendant has an absolute right to demand that process be issued against him in a manner prescribed by law.” (Mannesman Demag v. Superior Court (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1118, 1124.)

Service of a substantially defective summons does not confer jurisdiction over a party. (Id.) “[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.) Moreover, California law requires that the plaintiff prove valid service and personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. (Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 793-794.)

Because Defendant has properly moved to quash service of the summons, the burden is on Plaintiff to show effective service.

On July 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service of Summons (“July 22, 2025 POS”). The July 22, 2025 POS indicates that Defendant was personally served with the Summons and Complaint by an Authorized Agent of Sacramento County’s Sheriff’s Office, on June 30, 2025 at 5860 Esrig Ave., Sacramento, CA. Defendant does not dispute the validity of the July 22, 2025 POS in his moving papers.

Plaintiff also filed a Proof of Service on July 24, 2025, indicating that Defendant was served with the FAC by substituted service on July 24, 2025 at Defendant’s home (July 24, 2025 “POS”). The Court notes that the July 24, 2025 POS does not indicate that Defendant was served with a summons. (July 24, 2025 POS, at p. 1.) Additionally, while the July 24, 2025 POS indicates that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV013589: GHASSEMINEZHAD vs GORDON G. BONES, ESQ., et al. 08/05/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash 1st Amended Complaint in Department 54

Defendant was served by substituted service at his home, the box is not checked for line 5(b)(4) to indicate that the documents were thereafter mailed by first-class, postage prepaid. (Ibid.) However, despite not checking this box, the date of mailing is filled in (indicating a date of 7/25/2025), as well as the city from which the documents were mailed (indicating El Dorado Hills, CA). (Ibid.) The July 24, 2025 POS is signed by Sia Ghassminezhad.

On July 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Declaration to Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Amended Complaint” (“Plaintiff’s Declaration”). Plaintiff avers that:

On July 22, 2025, I filed a Proof of Service with the Court indicating that the Amended Complaint had been served on Defendant via substituted service at his personal residence since he does not have an office address. The documents were served on his roommate, Raymond, a competent adult at the residence.

On July 25, 2025, I mailed a copy of the Amended Complaint to Defendant at the same address via first-class mail, as required under California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b), and attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

(Plaintiff’s Declaration at 1:23-2:3.)

Plaintiff further declares that the FAC, including exhibits, totals 70 pages and that Plaintiff emailed Defendant a copy of the FAC to Defendant on July 24, 2025. (Plaintiff’s Declaration at 2:5, Exhibit 2.)

Finally, Plaintiff declares that, “[t]o ensure proper service” she will re-serve Defendant at his home address. Plaintiff states that this “new service” will include: (1) the summons, (2) the full FAC, (3) all “72” pages of exhibits, (4) a copy mailed via first-class mail if substituted service is used, and (5) a new proof of service filed with the Court.” (Plaintiff’s Declaration at 2:16-21.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy her burden of showing valid service of the FAC on Defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.

An amendment making substantive changes in the complaint must be personally served on any defendant who, as here, has not appeared in the action. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV013589: GHASSEMINEZHAD vs GORDON G. BONES, ESQ., et al. 08/05/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash 1st Amended Complaint in Department 54

Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2025) ¶ 6:609, p. 183.)

The July 24, 2025 POS indicates that Plaintiff attempted to effectuate service on Defendant via substitute service pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20. Subdivision (b) of this section permits substitute service on individuals when personal service cannot be accomplished with reasonable diligence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20 subd. (b).) However, Plaintiff has submitted no evidence, either in the form of a declaration of diligence or otherwise, which states any actions taken first to attempt personal service.

Stated differently, there is no evidence that personal service in this case cannot be accomplished with reasonable diligence. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Defendant was properly served by substitute service because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that personal service cannot be accomplished with reasonable diligence as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20 subdivision (b).

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20 provides that substitute service is effectuated by leaving the summons and complaint at the person's dwelling or usual mailing address with a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge who is at least 18 years of age and who shall be informed of its contents, and thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the person served. (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20 subd., (a),(b).) Here, the July 24, 2025 POS does not clearly indicate that a copy of the documents were thereafter mailed to the person served.

As noted above, box 5(b)(4) on the July 24, 2025 POS (which would indicate that the documents were thereafter mailed by first-class, postage prepaid) is not checked, but the date and city of mailing is filled in. (July 24, 2025 Proof of Service). In addition to this inconsistency, the date of mailing indicated on line 5(b)(4) is July 25, 2025, one day after the proof of service was signed and filed. Moreover, Plaintiff avers that on July 25, 2025 Plaintiff, herself, “mailed a copy of the Amended Complaint to Defendant at the same address via first-class mail.” However, Plaintiff cannot effectuate substitute service pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20 by mailing the documents herself, as she is a party to the case.

Accordingly, even if Plaintiff had properly established that personal service cannot be accomplished with reasonable diligence so as to justify substitute service, the Court could still not find, on the facts before it, that the July 24, 2025 POS establishes proper service of the FAC. For these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has properly served the FAC on Defendant and the motion quash must be granted.

While the Court need not continue, the Court makes the following observations for the benefit of the parties.

First, the Court notes that Defendant contends that Plaintiff's agent served only pages 1-2 of their 72-page First Amended Complaint at Defendant's residence” (Motion at 3:1-2.) It is unclear to the Court how many pages Plaintiff’s FAC consists of. The FAC on file with the Court is only 2

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV013589: GHASSEMINEZHAD vs GORDON G. BONES, ESQ., et al. 08/05/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash 1st Amended Complaint in Department 54

pages long. However, page 1, line 2 of the FAC indicates that “this pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: 72.” (FAC at 1, line 2.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s Declaration implies that the FAC is either 72 pages or 70 pages. (See Plaintiff’s Declaration, 2:5 & 2:16-21.) To the extent that the FAC is intended to comprise of more than 2 pages, Plaintiff needs to rectify the Court’s record in this regard, as the FAC on file with the Court only consists of two pages. Moreover, to the extent the FAC is intended to comprise of more than 2 pages, Defendant must also be properly served with the entire pleading.

Second, the Court further notes that Defendant argues that service should be quashed because no summons was served with the FAC. (Motion at 3:21-28.) However, the Court’s record indicates that the summons was personally served on Defendant on June 30, 2025 and Defendant cites no legal authority to support the proposition that a summons must be re-served when an amended complaint is served but no amended summons has been issued. (July 22, 2025 POS.)

Third, the Court notes that on July 29, 2025, after this motion was filed, Plaintiff filed a subsequent proof of service (the “July 29, 2025 POS”) which indicates that Defendant was served via substituted service with: the “summons,” the “complaint” and the “declaration to motion to quash, declaration and exhibits of complaint.” (July 29, 2025, 2025 POS.) However, it is unclear from the July 29, 2025 POS whether Plaintiff served Defendant with the original complaint or the operative FAC. Additionally, there is still no declaration of diligence or other evidence which indicates that Plaintiff was unable to reasonably personally serve Defendant thus permitting the use of substituted service. Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff sought to address the service issues raised by Defendant’s motion with the July 29, 2025 POS, Plaintiff’s efforts were unsuccessful.

Finally, Defendant makes the following additional requests in his moving papers: (1) finding that Plaintiff’s July 24, 2025 POS is “false and defective,” (2) that the Court dismiss the FAC without prejudice, (3) shortening time for hearing this matter before the scheduled trial date of July 31, 2025, and (4) the Court dismiss as moot Defendant’s previously filed Motion to Quash Service of Summons of the original complaint filed on July 18, 2025.

However, Defendant’s notice of motion does not provide notice of these requests. As a result, it does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(a) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1010, which require the moving party to state the grounds for the motion in its notice of motion. Thus, each of these additional requests are DENIED. Furthermore, the Court notes that even if notice had been given, Defendant provides no authority requiring a complaint to be dismissed where a motion to quash for deficient service has been granted. Additionally, in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV013589: GHASSEMINEZHAD vs GORDON G. BONES, ESQ., et al. 08/05/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash 1st Amended Complaint in Department 54

regards, to Defendant’s request that his earlier motion to quash service of the original complaint (filed on July 18, 2025 and set to be heard on November 13, 2025) be dismissed, Defendant may file a notice of withdrawal of that motion. The Court also observes that Defendant’s request for shortening time to hear this motion before the previous trial date of July 31, 2025, is moot as trial has been continued to January 8, 2026.

Disposition

For the foregoing reasons, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has met her burden of showing valid service of the first amended complaint on Defendant by a preponderance of the evidence and thus the motion to quash is GRANTED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

[1] The Court notes that on July 29, 2025, it denied Defendant’s ex parte application, which sought in part,

authorization to serve this motion on shortened time. (See Ex Parte Application to Set Motion to Quash for Hearing on July 31, 2025, filed July 28, 2025 at p. 1: 26.) However, as explained in the Court’s July 29, 2025 Order, the Court could not grant the additional relief requested in that motion (i.e., to set this motion to be heard in Department 47 in two days and at the same date and time that a short cause trial is scheduled to occur.) Trial was subsequently continued to January 8, 2026.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV013589: GHASSEMINEZHAD vs GORDON G. BONES, ESQ., et al. 08/05/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash 1st Amended Complaint in Department 54

argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.