Contreras v. Cotti Foods Corporation

# Case Name Tentative

59. Contreras v. Defendant Cotti Foods Corporation’s Motion to Quash Service Cotty Foods of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. Corporation §418.10.)

2026- A motion to quash is available where the plaintiff has not 01568744 achieved valid service of summons on a defendant because until valid service of a valid summons has been made, the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant. (See Code Civ. Proc. §418.10, subd. (a)(1); see also Kremerman v. White (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 358, 371.)

When a defendant moves to quash service, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. (School Dist. of Okaloosa County v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1131.)

Plaintiff has failed to establish that the summons and complaint were served upon defendant in compliance with the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §415.10, et seq.

Plaintiff’s proof of service of summons has errors and inconsistencies. It appears from what plaintiff has filed that the only attempt at service of process has been by mailing the summons and complaint to defendant. Code Civ. Proc. §415.30 provides the requirements that must be followed in order to serve a defendant with the summons and complaint via mail. Plaintiff has failed to show compliance with Code Civ. Proc. §415.30.

Additionally, the summons filed and issued on 5/11/26 (ROA 2) improperly identifies Julieta Contreras as a Defendant and Cotti Foods Corporation as the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff shall file an amended summons that corrects the defects in the currently issued summons. Plaintiff shall then serve defendant in a manner consistent with Code Civ. Proc. §§ 415.10, 415.20, or 415.30 and file a valid proof of service of summons.

Plaintiff is encouraged to consult with the court’s self-help desk.

Moving defendant shall provide notice of this ruling.

60.

61. TandP LLC v. Defendant Luqra, LLC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings Evolve Bank is DENIED. & Trust