C. Sanctions Plaintiff seeks $1,935 for each motion against Defendants and their counsel of record (= [2.5 hours at $750/hour] + [$60 in filing fees]). The Court finds that the FROG and RPD motions are essentially identical as brought against each of the Defendants. As noted in the parties' meet and confer efforts, Defendants' objections, in part, were substantially justified as Plaintiff eventually clarified on June 24, 2026 (over two months after the motions were filed) the correct address at issue in the motions.

In light of the corrected address, Defendants had substantial justification to hold their position that the Eduard address was not an address they recognized as a part of their business. Defendants then provided supplemental responses on August 4, 2026 (a little over a month after the corrected addresses were provided) to draft responses and gather documents pertaining to the corrected address. Failure to identify the proper address provided proper grounds for Defendants to object until such issues were corrected.

As such, the Court declines to award Plaintiff attorney's fees.

---

RULING: In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court's records.

ORDER Plaintiff Hgeiler Alvarez Tovar's Motions to Compel Further came on regularly for hearing on August 14, 2026, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MotionS to Compel DEFENDANT BZ PROPERTY MANAGEMENT'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORY NOS. 4.1, 15.1, AND 17.1 AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NOS. 1-4, 6-10, AND 12-21 ARE DENIED AS MOOT IN LIGHT OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES.

THE MotionS to Compel DEFENDANT XDZ INVESTMENT GROUP ENTERPRIZE, LLC'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORY NOS. 4.1, 15.1, AND 17.1 AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NOS. 1-4, 6-10, AND 12-21 ARE DENIED AS MOOT IN LIGHT OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES.

NO SANCTIONS SHALL BE AWARDED. PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE NOTICE. IT IS SO ORDERED.

TENTATIVE RULING AUGUST 14, 2026 MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 25NNCV07248 MP: Defendant Purrfect Mechanical Services, Inc. RP: Plaintiff Emeka V. Peter

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by Unknown Judge Unknown dossier Other Motion to Quash in LA All LA County rulings Other Breach of Contract / Property Damage cases Other granted rulings in LA

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

NOTICE: The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter. The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested. Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is required and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party's intention to appear and argue. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received. Notice may be given either by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: Emeka V. Peter ("Plaintiff") alleges that on December 9, 2024, he took his car to Purrfect Mechanical Services, Inc. ("Defendant") and provided his own part for repair. Plaintiff alleges Defendant charged Plaintiff $200 for the repair and took possession of his vehicle to fix the master brake system. Although the repair was supposed to be completed the same day, Defendant falsely informed Plaintiff that the repair would not be finished because the person responsible for bleeding the brake system was unavailable.

After five days, Plaintiff returned, paid Defendant $100, and noticed that the repair had not been completed and that there was a crack in his windshield. Upon return, Defendant refused to perform the windshield replacement or repair the coding system unless Plaintiff paid the remaining $100 balance. Plaintiff alleges Defendant's conduct, his windshield, the brake system, and coding system were left in a damaged and unsafe condition, depriving him of the use of his vehicle. The Complaint, filed October 14, 2025, alleges: (1) Negligence; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Breach of Warranty; (4) Property Damage; and (5) Loss of Use.

MOTION ON CALENDAR: On May 1, 2026, Defendant filed a Motion to Quash Service of the Complaint. On May 27, 2026, Plaintiff (a self-represented litigant) filed an opposition. On July 24, 2026, Defendant filed a reply. On July 30, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Errata regarding Ada Peter's declaration.

LEGAL STANDARD: C.C.P. Sec. 418.10(a)(1) states: "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" to " quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her." C.C.P. Sec. 415.10 states in relevant part: A summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete at the time of such delivery. (C.C.P. Sec. 415.10.)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE: With the motion, Defendant requests judicial notice of Exhibits: (A) the Proof of Service of Hayk Mirimanyan dated October 13, 2025 in this action; (B) Proof of Service in Case No. 25VECV07298 on Hayk Mirimanyan dated October 22, 2025; and (C) Proof of Service in Case No. 25VECV07398 on Hayk Mirimanyan dated April 8, 2026. The request is granted. (Evid. Code, Sec. 452(d).)

ANALYSIS: A. Proof of Service On December 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Proof of Service of Summons, indicating that Defendant was personally served on October 22, 2025 at 4:30 by serving Hayk Mirimanyan at 4350 Whitsett Avenue, Studio City, CA 91604. Service was effectuated by Ada Peter, who is not a registered California process server.

Defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint. In support of the motion, Defendant provides Hayk Mirimanyan's declaration. Mr. Mirimanyan states that he has been Defendant's agent since 2017 and is the principal officer. (Mirimanyan Decl., P.4.) He believes that on the dates he was supposed to be in the shop and personally served with the legal papers, he was either in his home office or with business associates. (Id., P.6.) He states that on October 22, 2025, he was never at the business location at 4350 Whitsett Avenue and has never been served by any means with the summons and complaint in this action. (Id., P.7.)

He states he first became aware of the legal documents on April 8, 2026, when his manager Andy Kepenyan told him about the lawsuit; he then saw the documents on April 28, 2026 when he met with his attorney Donald M. Shirwo. (Id., P.9.) He states that he spoke with his employees at the business location and no one received the summons and complaint documents. (Id., P.10.)

Mr. Kepenyan provides his declaration, stating that he is Defendant's manager and regularly at the business location daily from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. except Saturday and Monday. (Kepenyan Decl., P.P.3-4.) He states that he was at the business address on October 22, 2025 and that for all business hours of that day, Mr. Mirimanyan was not present at any time and he normally was not present at the location unless there was an emergency or something unusual. (Id., P.5.) On "April 8, 2026," Mr. Kepenyan states he was at the business location all day and that later in the afternoon, a woman parked her car in the driveway, walked up to the counter, and dropped a sealed envelope and left the business. (Id., P.6.)

He states he opened the sealed envelope and inside was the Case management Statement, and that he called Mr. Mirimanyan about the paperwork. (Id., P.7.) When he was subsequently shown the legal documents by Mr. Shirwo, he states that no one delivered those documents to the business on October 13 or 22, 2025 and that the woman who dropped the sealed envelope on "April 7, 2026" was never on the business premises on October 13 or 22, 2025. (Id., P.8.) (The Court notes that the Case Management Statement filed April 7, 2026 includes a proof of service showing that Ada Peters personally served the document on Hayk Mirimanyan on behalf of Defendant on April 7, 2026.)

Defense counsel Darold M. Shirwo provides his declaration, stating that he is a regular customer of Defendant, an avid car collector, and regularly has one to two cars at Defendant's shop such that he is at the premises at least two to three times a week. (Shirwo Decl., P.P.4-6.) Mr. Shirwo states that he has spoken to all Defendant's attorneys (Karlin Khachayryan, Andy "Kepentyan", Alfredo Ortega, and Alex Contreras) who were working on October 13 and 22, 2025, and no one remembers a woman or anyone else delivering legal papers or a sealed envelope during business hours nor do they remember Mr. Mirimanyan being present at the shop those days. (Id., P.8.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant does not deny that Mr. Mirimanyan is Defendant's agent and that Defendant relies on self-serving declarations when a non-party, non-registered adult process server served Defendant. Plaintiff provides Ada Peter's declaration, wherein she states that she personally went to Defendant's business location on October 22, 2025, she was instructed by Plaintiff to confirm the identity and take a picture of the person served, she personally observed and spoke with Mr. Mirimanyan, she personally delivered the summons and complaint on Mr. Mirimanyan, and she took a photograph of Mr. Mirimanyan depicting the individual who accepted service on Defendant's behalf. (Ada Peter Decl., P.P.3-9; Ex. A [Photographs].)

In reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's evidence is based on perjury and amounts to deceit because Plaintiff's photograph depicts a brown Oldsmobile Tornado on the left side of the photograph, which Defendant circles in its Reply Exhibit 2, showing a car that is owned by Mr. Shirwo that was not located at the premises on October 22, 2025. Mr. Shirwo states that he purchased that car on January 2, 2026 and delivered the vehicle to Defendant between April 5 to April 8, 2026. (Shriwo Reply Decl., P.P.3-4, Ex. 2 [Circled Photograph]; Kepenyan Decl., P.P.5-6.) Thus, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's submitted photograph and Ms. Peter's declaration are acts of perjury.

At this point, the Court cannot ascertain when the photograph was taken as there is no time stamp on the photograph. However, based on the evidence submitted by the parties, Mr. Mirimanyan and Mr. Kepenyan state that Mr. Mirimanyan was not on the premises on October 22, 2025 to personally accept service. Furthermore, Defendant has provided a reasonable explanation regarding the photograph that it could not have been taken on October 22, 2025 and that it was likely taken on April 7 or 8, 2026 when Ada Peters delivered the Case Management Statement.

Based on the evidence before the Court, the Court grants the motion to quash service of the summons and complaint. At this point, it appears that the parties do not contest that Mr. Mirimanyan is the agent for service of process for Defendant, Mr. Mirimanyan's identity and physical features (as Defendant does not dispute that Mr. Mirimanyan was on the business premises on April 7 or 8 or that he is the person depicted in the photographs), or the business address, such that Plaintiff may re-attempt service on Defendant.

RULING: In the event a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court's records.

ORDER Defendant Purrfect Mechanical Services, Inc.'s Motion to Quash Service of the Complaint came on regularly for hearing on August 14, 2026, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS IS GRANTED.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE IS SET FOR OCTOBER 30, 2026 AT 9:00 AM

DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE NOTICE. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case Number: 25NNCV07953 Hearing Date: August 14, 2026 Dept: A TENTATIVE RULING AUGUST 14, 2026