Unknown v. Unknown

DEPARTMENT 8 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion to quash is denied, as it appears the defendant failed to provide notice of the motion to counsel of record for plaintiff. The declaration accompanying the defendant's motion states that the defendant provided notice to Singer & Scott PC in San Francisco, CA. The counsel of record as identified on the complaint, however, is Matthew Scholnick of Zelms Erlich Lenkov LLP of Woodland Hills, CA. Finding good cause under Code of Civil Procedure section 1167.3, the court will allow the defendant, within five days of this ruling, to file another motion to quash with notice to counsel of record for the plaintiff or to respond to the complaint.

Case Number: 26IWUD00564 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 Dept: 8

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion to quash service of summons is denied. The Defendant's motion does not contest service of the summons or complaint. Instead, she argues only that the notice to quit was not properly served and that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. A motion to quash is not an appropriate pleading in which to raise those arguments. The Defendant is ordered to respond to the complaint within five days of notice of the court's ruling. Court to provide notice.

Case Number: 26IWUD00694 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 Dept: 8

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion to quash is denied. The Plaintiff filed a proof of service stating that a registered process server personally served the Defendant with the summons and complaint on May 6, 2026. Under Evidence Code section 647, proof of service by a registered process server "'establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.' As explained in Evidence Code section 604, '[t]he effect of a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence is to require the trier of fact to assume the existence of the presumed fact unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence, in which case the trier of fact shall determine the existence or nonexistence of the presumed fact from the evidence and without regard to the presumption.'? (Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1428.)

The Defendant states in his declaration that he was never personally served with the complaint and summons and that instead, on April 27, 2026, he found a summons and complaint on his door. This statement is somewhat undermined by a statement in his memorandum of points and authorities that he found the documents "in the trash bin near the elevators." Moreover, the Defendant does not provide any evidence rebutting the statement of the process server that he served the Defendant personally on May 6, 2026. The court orders the Plaintiff to give notice of this ruling and the Defendant to respond to the complaint within five days of such notice.