N/A v. N/A

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 316) August 18, 2026 DEPARTMENT 316 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

orders Plaintiff to provide verified, code-compliant further responses to the discovery requests at issue within twenty days of notice of the Court's order. The Court orders Plaintiff to pay the moving Defendants sanctions in the amount of $1,087.50 to be paid within thirty days of notice of the Court's order. Moving Defendants to give notice. Case Number: 25STCV29777 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: 316 BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Rajauii Murphy, Iyana Taylor, Rajauii Murphy Jr., Honey Murphy, and Alanna Taylor allege that their rental unit was unfit for human habitation and detrimental to their health and safety.

On March 2, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint against Defendant Deborah A. Daniels. The complaint alleges three causes of action stemming from the facts alleged above. On April 13, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Proof of Service of Summons ("POS"). On May 29, 2026, Defendant filed a Motion to Quash Service of Summons. On August 5, 2026, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. No reply was filed.

Defendant's Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED. LEGAL STANDARD Compliance with the statutory procedures for service ¿ of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. (See ¿ Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. ¿ (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.) Thus, a court lacks personal ¿ jurisdiction ¿ over a party if they have not been properly served. (See ¿ Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.) The filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper, but only if the proof of service satisfies relevant statutory requirements. (See Dill v.

Berquist Construction Co. ¿ (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1441-1442.) "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 ¿ . . . ¿ (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. " (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) DISCUSSION The Court finds that Plaintiffs satisfied all requirements for substituted service and that the means of substituted service were proper.

Thus, Defendant