CARLOTTA CT., LLC VS. BRITTANY L PICKETT ROSE

August 12, 2026 Law and Motion, Complex Law and Motion, and UD Law and Motion Calendars Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ 2:00 PM LINE 13 26-UDL-00556 CARLOTTA CT., LLC VS. BRITTANY L PICKETT ROSE

CARLOTTA CT., LLC STEVEN T. NAUMCHIK BRITTANY L PICKETT ROSE

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT

TENTATIVE RULING:

See Line 14.

August 12, 2026 Law and Motion, Complex Law and Motion, and UD Law and Motion Calendars Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ 2:00 PM LINE 14 26-UDL-00556 CARLOTTA CT., LLC VS. BRITTANY L. PICKETT ROSE

CARLOTTA CT., LLC STEVEN T. NAUMCHIK BRITTANY L. PICKETT ROSE

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s motion to quash service is GRANTED. The motion to set aside the default judgment is DENIED as moot.

On June 4, 2026, pursuant to an application filed on June 3, 2026, the civil commissioner issued an order authorizing posting and mailing of the summons and complaint. (June 4, 2026 Order.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 415.45, subdivision (b), “[t]he court shall order the summons to be posted on the premises in a manner most likely to give actual notice to the party to be served and direct that a copy of the summons and of the complaint be forthwith mailed by certified mail to such party at the party’s last known address.” Subsection (c) provides that “[s]ervice of summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after posting and mailing.”

The process server’s declaration states that he served defendant “[b]y posting and mailing” the summons and complaint “per C.C.P 415.45 at the address shown in item #4, on Jun 6, 2026 at 3:39 PM and mailing of the same by certified mail, to the address shown in item #4, on Jun 6, 2026 from Santa Clara, California.”

Defendant’s declaration states that she was “undergoing medical care during the relevant time period. As a result, I was not consistently at the property, and I was not in a position to discover any alleged posting. I was not aware that a posting was actually done at the premises.” She further states that “[t]he certified mailing associated with the posting procedure was returned to sender. I understand this from the USPS tracking history showing that the item was marked “Unclaimed/Being Returned to Sender” and later “Delivered, To Original Sender.’” (See USPS tracking, attached to Declaration of Brittany L. Picket-Rose.) Indeed, it appears that mailing was never successfully completed and the package was returned to the sender on July 13, 2026. (Ibid.) Accordingly, service was not completed and is ordered QUASHED.