RANDLE vs TAYLOR, et al.

26CV186153: RANDLE vs TAYLOR, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to Quash Service of Summons; filed by Jamaal Taylor (Defendant) CRS# 971698754361 in Department 511

Tentative Ruling - 08/07/2026 Lupe Garcia

The Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by Jamaal Taylor on 07/16/2026 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 party’s 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 Jamaal Taylor to quash service of summons by Plaintiff Walter R. Randle, pursuant to CCP §§ 418.10(a)(1) and 1167.4(a), is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Randle filed his Complaint against Defendants Jamaal Taylor and Kitshwa Genama for unlawful detainer on May 7, 2026. Plaintiff’s claim is based on Defendants’ alleged failure to pay rent. Plaintiff’s Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit served prior to the filing of the Complaint indicates that Defendants owed $55,368.00 as of April 26, 2026. On June 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed his proof of substitute service of summons on Defendant Taylor on May 13, 2026, at 7:56 a.m. Plaintiff subsequently filed a request for entry of default and default judgment against Defendant Taylor on July 16, 2026. The Clerk’s Office denied the request because Defendant Taylor filed a motion to quash on June 22, 2026.

Although Defendant is the moving party, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof when service of the summons is challenged. See Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413 (plaintiff bears the burden of establishing valid service); and Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-1440 (same). Plaintiff may not simply ask the Court to apply the statutory presumption that service was proper if Defendant submits evidence that contradicts the information in the proof of service. See Evidence Code § 647. Defendant Taylor states in his supporting declaration that the facts set forth in the proof of substitute service of summons signed by registered process server Moises Altunar-Hernandez are not true. Defendant states that there is no one who is a member of his household with an appearance similar to that described by Mr. Altunar-Hernandez in the proof of service.

Plaintiff’s counsel has not filed an opposition to the motion to quash. Defendant’s proof of electronic service of the motion to quash indicates that an individual named Welton Penney served the motion on Plaintiff’s counsel on July 16, 2026. The Court may consider Plaintiff’s 26CV186153: RANDLE vs TAYLOR, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to Quash Service of Summons; filed by Jamaal Taylor (Defendant) CRS# 971698754361 in Department 511 failure to file an opposition as an acknowledgement that Defendant’s arguments have merit. See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.

Defendant Taylor’s argument that Plaintiff’s Complaint is not valid because the allegations were not properly verified is rejected. Defendant is not authorized to make arguments regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s case because he is merely making a special appearance to challenge the Court’s personal jurisdiction over him. Defendant Taylor’s contention that Plaintiff’s service of summons on Defendant Genama is defective is not accepted because Defendant Genama has not made a general appearance in this case, and Defendant Taylor does not claim to be an attorney authorized to advocate for Defendant Genama. See Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125 (unauthorized practice of law).

The Court will prepare the order. The court clerk will deliver a copy of the order to the parties. Defendant Taylor shall file and serve the notice of entry of order no later than August 17, 2026.