LVNV Funding LLC v. Babatunde Agbabiaka

to meet their burden to show that enforcement of the New York forum selection clause will not diminish Plaintiffs’ rights under California law from protection against usury, it need not engage in a weighing of the additional equitable factors upon which Defendants’ motion is based.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is DENIED.

In The Matter of Catherine Marie Byers 26CV000081

PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME

TENTATIVE RULING: Notice has been properly published and no written objections have been filed. The petition is GRANTED without need for appearance.

LVNV Funding LLC v. Babatunde Agbabiaka 26CV000103

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

Defendant Babatunde Agbabiaka Jr (“Defendant”) moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1), 4 to quash service of summons on the grounds that Defendant was not properly served.

“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, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (§ 418.10, subd. (a)(1).)

Whether a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in a forum state involves two separate factors. First, the existence of a constitutionally-sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction over each defendant; and second, acquisition of such jurisdiction by service of process in accordance with statutory and due process requirements. (Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1229; Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607, 612.) The only issue in dispute on the present Motion is the second factor – proper service of process.

“When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process the burden is on the plaintiff to prove ... the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413. Internal quotes omitted.)

Defendant claims that the proof of service (“POS”) shows the summons and complaint were left on a bench outside the property at 812 Danrose Dr, American Canyon, CA 94503.

4 All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.

Defendant contends that he does not reside at that address. He provides his current address of 3505 Sonoma Blvd 20-102, Vallejo, CA 94590. Defendant further contends that the POS fails to show that he was either personally served or properly served by substituted service. Defendant argues that leaving documents on a bench is insufficient substituted service under section 415.20, subdivision (b), which requires the documents to be left with a competent member of the household or person apparently in charge at a defendant’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address, with a copy mailed to the same address.

While Defendant correctly asserts the statutory requirements for substituted service, Defendant’s argument that the POS fails to show that the requirements were satisfied lacks merit (other than the correct address). Instead, the POS demonstrates service on a competent member of the household and that the documents were thereafter mailed. (See 2/24/26 Proof of Service of Summons.) The Court finds no reference to the documents being left on a bench, and Defendant fails to provide any foundation for that contention.

That said, it appears undisputed that Defendant does not reside at the address served. There is no opposition on file by Plaintiff and the only address provided for Defendant in Plaintiff’s Complaint is the Vallejo address. There is nothing before the Court indicating that the American Canyon address is connected to Defendant. Thus, the POS fails to show compliance with the requirement that service be made “at the person’s dwelling house [or] usual place of abode.” (§ 415.20, subd. (b).)

Because the POS fails to show proper service on Defendant, the motion is GRANTED.

Integon National Insurance Company v. Andrew Madison 26CV000413 Mackenzie-Davis et al

MOTION BY PLAINTIFF FOR ORDER PERMITTING SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT ANDREW MADISON MACKENZIE-DAVIS BY PUBLICATION

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order.

The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to the other party served forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.

15