BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 03/06/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 03/06/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 53

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant California Department of Transportation’s motion to quash service of summons pursuant to CCP § 418.10 is denied without prejudice as explained herein.

Defendant seeks to quash service of summons pursuant to CCP § 418.10. Defendant asserts that it was not properly served because Plaintiff Robert Bridges served the summons and complaint on a person not authorized to accept service.

Defendant’s default was entered on October 10, 2024. Given Defendant is currently in default, the only motion that Defendant may properly make is one to set aside the default. As Defendant’s default has been entered by the Clerk and not yet set aside, the Court has lost jurisdiction to address any action by the defaulted defendant other than a motion to vacate entry of default. (See, e.g. W. A. Rose Co. v. Municipal Court for Oakland-Piedmont Judicial Dist. (1959) 176 Cal. App. 2d 67, 72.) “[T]he entry of the default terminates [the defaulting defendant’s] rights to take any further affirmative steps in the litigation until either the default is set aside or a default judgment is entered.” (City of Riverside v.

Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670, 681 [citing Garcia v. Politis (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1479; Devlin v. Kearny Mesa Amc/Jeep/Renault (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385].) “Upon the failure of the defendant to answer the complaint within the time allowed by law, and upon the entry of default, in the absence of fraud, the right of the defendant to participate in the litigation is terminated, and the subsequent filing of an answer or demurrer on his part is unauthorized and void, unless upon proceedings duly had, the default is first set aside ” (Forbes v.

Cameron Petroleums, Inc. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 257, 262-63 [citing cases].) Where “defendants' default had already been entered, they had no standing to file any responsive pleading without first obtaining relief from the default.” (Id. at 263.)

The Court is aware that Defendant attempts to argue that even if service was proper that the default should be set aside pursuant to CCP § 473(b). However, the instant motion is a motion to quash pursuant to CCP § 418.10. A motion to quash does not address whether a default should be set aside and instead addresses whether the service of the summons and complaint should be quashed. The Court further notes that the notice of motion purports to state that it is also “based upon the simultaneously but separately filed notice of motion and motion for relief from entry of default pursuant to section 473(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is based upon the same set of facts and issues as this motion.” (Not. 2:2-5.)

A motion cannot be based on a “separately filed” motion. Further, Defendant has no separate motion to set aside entry of default simultaneously set for hearing on this date. The only motion before the Court at this time is the instant motion to quash.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 03/06/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 53

Additionally, generally, a motion to quash must be made “on or before the last day” of a defendant’s time to respond to the complaint. (CCP § 418.10(a).) Here, however, that time passed and Defendant’s default was entered in October 2024.

Defendant’s remedy at this point is limited to a motion to set aside. Until the default is set aside, the Court cannot address any other motion.

As a result, the motion to quash is denied without prejudice to Defendant raising its arguments regarding improper service in a motion to set aside the default.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendant’s counsel is ordered to notify Plaintiff immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Plaintiff appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.