NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Tentative Ruling:

Defendant Alex Emer’s (“Defendant”) motion to quash service of summons is ruled upon as follows. Defendant is self-represented.

Plaintiff Nordstrom, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed its complaint in this action on September 30, 2025.

On October 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a proof of service including a declaration of diligence from a registered process server averring service to Defendant with Plaintiff’s summons and complaint on October 3, 2025, and providing specific details showing that Defendant was served. The process server states, “A man opened the door to the apartment. I asked if he was ‘Alex Emer’ and he responded ‘Yes.’” The process server gives a physical description of Defendant as a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023298: NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint in Department 28

bald, Caucasian male, between 41-45 years old, and between 5’7” and 6’0” and 161-180 pounds. She visually identified the individual as being the same person shown in the photograph provided to her: “He . . . looked just like the picture I have of him that is in the complaint,” a photograph that also matches the process server’s physical description. The process server relays: “He stared at the documents for approximately 10 seconds, and then he said he was refusing service.” She therefore “dropped the documents on the floor near his feet.” The process server does not report that the individual stated he was the incorrect person, or that he was not Alex Emer; the declaration recounts that the individual stated merely that he was “refusing” the service.

Defendant filed a motion to quash service of summons on October 6, 2025, an amended motion to quash service of summons on October 14, 2025, a second amended motion to quash service of summons on February 9, 2026, and a third amended motion to quash service of summons on February 13, 2026. There is no proof of service on file for Defendant’s third amended motion to quash service of summons, and the Court treats Defendant’s second amended service of summons as the operative motion at issue.

Defendant’s motion exceeds the 15-page limit for an opening memorandum, and as such the Court does not consider the memorandum past its fifteenth page. (Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 3.1113(d),(g).

Defendants summarizes his his arguments in support of his motion as follows:

First, it failed as personal service under CCP § 415.10 because the documents were abandoned at the feet of a complete stranger at an incorrect address, without any actual delivery to the intended party.

Second, the Proof of Service and the accompanying Declaration of Diligence signed by process server Pamela Hawkins are fraudulent documents, containing a fabricated narrative of identification and a fictitious list of aliases in a bad-faith attempt to paper over a failed serve, thereby perpetrating a fraud upon this Court.

Third, the service failed as substitute service under § 415.20 because it was not preceded by reasonable diligence, as the single attempt at an unrelated address demonstrates a complete lack of effort to locate Defendant.

Fourth, it failed as substitute service because it was performed at a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023298: NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint in Department 28

location wholly unconnected to Defendant, with no nexus to his dwelling, abode, or place of business.

Fifth, it failed as substitute service due to the complete omission of the mandatory follow-up mailing, a statutory requirement that cannot be waived or excused.

Sixth, the Proof of Service contains perjurious statements that are directly contradicted by the server’s own Declaration of Diligence.

Seventh, the fraudulent nature of the service is compounded by Nordstrom’s subsequent pattern of false proofs of service and continued violations after judicial rebuke.

(Second Amended Motion to Quash Service, 4:22-5:15.)

Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff argues:

First, the Proof of Personal Service and accompanying declaration establish that the registered process server personally served Defendant with the Summons and Complaint. Defendant identified himself as “Alex Emer,” and the process server visually identified the person she served as Defendant. Defendant’s arguments that the service was improper—because (1) the papers were dropped at his feet and (2) Nordstrom did not also serve them via mail—lack merit. See Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Brenneke, 551 F.3d 1132, 1134 (9th Cir. 2009) (service effective where party identified himself over intercom and papers left on party’s doorstep); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b) (requiring mail service only where personal service not validly effectuated).

Second, Defendant provides no evidence to rebut the statutory presumption created by the registered process server’s declaration accompanying the Proof of Service. Defendant merely claims that (1) he was in San Diego at the time and (2) the server served an unrelated third party. Without supporting evidence, these assertions fail to overcome the sworn declaration of a neutral, third-party process server that she identified Defendant visually, and he identified himself by name. Moreover, Defendant admitted in discovery that (1) he sent an email to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023298: NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint in Department 28

Nordstrom describing the claimed mistaken service that was purportedly from “Alex Yakovlev;” (2) he has used the name “Alex Yakovlev” in the past; and (3) contrary to what he is telling the Court, no third party ever contacted him about this allegedly mistaken service. Defendant’s attempt to argue that the process server lied about her identification and instead served an unrelated third party therefore fails, not only because it is implausible, but also because Defendant’s own admissions defeat it. (Opposition, 1:8-26.)

California Evidence Code Section 647 provides that a registered process server's declaration of service establishes “a presumption[] affecting the burden of producing evidence[] of the facts stated” in the declaration. “The filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper.” Floveyor Int’l, Ltd. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal. App. 4th 789, 795 (1997). Once this presumption applies, the defendant is “required to rebut the presumption of proper service arising from the process server's declaration with evidence that he was not so served.” Rodriguez v. Cho, 236 Cal. App. 4th 742, 750 (2015).

The Court has reviewed the evidence submitted by both parties in support of, and in opposition to, the motion. The Court concludes that Defendant has failed to rebut the presumption of proper service arising from the process server’s declaration. The Court finds that service by Plaintiff on Defendant was proper and valid.

Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint is DENIED.

Defendant shall file and serve a responsive pleading no later than March 31, 2026.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order and serve and file a proposed order re same. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)