Zechariah Senior v. Zaher Lopez et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: August 20, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 5 25CV474539 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Click LINE 5 or scroll down for ruling. Andrew Tajvar Line 6 25CV479669 Daniel Scholl v. Amiel Defendant Wade Litigation, APC’s motion to compel the Wade et al. deposition of plaintiff Daniel Scholl. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450.) Notice is proper and the motion is opposed by plaintiff. (The court did not review plaintiff’s unauthorized supplemental opposition.) Plaintiff has failed to appear for a deposition on two occasions. The court finds no substantial justification for those failures to appear.

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff must sit for a deposition no later than September 18, 2026. Plaintiff is ordered to pay defendant $1,536 in sanctions no later than September 18, 2026. That amount consists of the $60 motion filing fee plus court reporter costs actually incurred by plaintiff’s failure to appear at the two scheduled depositions (evidenced by invoices attached to defense counsel’s declaration). The court will prepare the order. Line 7 25CV479981 Zechariah Senior v. Zaher Click LINE 7 or scroll down for ruling.

Lopez et al. Line 8 23CV423619 Timothy Young v. BMW of Click LINE 8 or scroll down for ruling. North America, LLC

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 7 Case Name: Zechariah Senior v. Zaher Lopez et al. Case No.: 25CV479981

This is an action brought by self-represented plaintiff Zechariah Senior (Plaintiff) against his former employer Walgreens Co. (Walgreens); Zaher Lopez (Lopez), an attorney who is representing Walgreens; and Tim Wentworth (Wentworth), in his capacity as the chief executive officer of Walgreens.

The original and still operative complaint was filed in November 2025. It appears to allege wage and hour violations from when Plaintiff was a minor. It does not state any clear causes of action. Nor does it comply with California Rules of Court, rule 2.112, which requires each cause of action in a pleading to be separately alleged and state its number (e.g., “first cause of action”), its nature (e.g., “for fraud”), and the party or parties to whom it is directed (e.g., “against defendant Smith”). There are no exhibits attached to the complaint.

Plaintiff filed a single proof of service of summons (POSS) on December 19, 2025. This document claims that “Tim Wentworth, Zaher Lopez, CT Cotporstiom” were served with copies of the summons through an unidentified means of substituted service on an unidentified date, and that copies were then mailed to them on December 11, 2025. (See POSS, at ¶ 5(b).) The POSS does not indicate that copies of a notice and acknowledgement of receipt and postage paid return envelopes were sent to the persons or entities served. (Id. at ¶ 5(c).) Service was not made by a registered process server. (Id. at ¶ 7.) The POSS is signed by Fortino Diaz.

At issue is a motion to quash service of summons by specially appearing defendants Lopez and Walgreens (hereafter, Defendants), filed in February 2026. Plaintiff has filed four separate oppositions to this motion, in March 2026, April 2026, May 2026 and July 2026. Plaintiff is admonished that typically only one opposition to a motion may be filed. The court will not consider unauthorized supplemental oppositions in the future. Self-represented litigants are entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (County of Orange v. Smith (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1444; Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543; Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

“Judicial notice may not be taken of any matter unless authorized or required by law.” (Evid. Code, § 450.) A precondition to judicial notice in either its permissive or mandatory form is that the matter to be noticed be relevant to the material issue before the court. (Silverado Modjeska Recreation and Park Dist. v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282, 307.) Evidence Code section 453, subdivision (b), requires a party seeking notice to “[furnish] the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.”

In support of the motion, Defendants have submitted a request for judicial notice of the contents of a Statement of Information filed with the Secretary of State, attached to the request as exhibit A, “pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452 and 453.” (Request at p. 2:2.) Defendants argue the document is noticeable as an official act. The request is denied. (Hughes 14

v. Blue Cross of N. Cal. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 832, 856, fn. 2, citing Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c) [Statement of Information, although on file with a government agency, not subject to judicial notice as an official act under subdivision (c) because it was prepared by private parties, not the Secretary of State]; People v. Thacker (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 594, 598-599 [copies of articles of incorporation, statement by domestic corporation, and notice of issuance of shares were materials prepared by private person, merely on file with state agencies, and not official acts].)

LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1), authorizes a defendant to file a motion to quash service of summons “on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) “[A] motion to quash under section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1), is a limited procedural tool to contest personal jurisdiction over the defendant where the statutory requirements for service of process are not fulfilled.” (Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 390.) New evidence is not permitted with reply papers unless it is “strictly responsive” to arguments made for the first time in the opposition. (Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733, 774.)

“[I]n California, ‘. . . the original service of process, which confers jurisdiction, must conform to statutory requirements or all that follows is void.’ ” (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 809.) “Until statutory requirements are satisfied, the court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant.” (Id. at p. 808.) “When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of summons the burden is on the plaintiff to prove . . . the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413, internal quotations omitted; see also Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160.)

Service can be effectuated via mail if the proper procedure is followed and the person to be served signs an acknowledgement of receipt of summons. Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30, subdivision (a) states: “A summons may be served by mail as provided in this section. A copy of the summons and of the complaint shall be mailed (by first-class mail or airmail, postage prepaid) to the person to be served, together with two copies of the notice and acknowledgment provided for in subdivision (b) and a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the sender.” (See also Code Civ.

Proc., §§ 416.10, subds. (a), (b) [stating that a summons and complaint may be served on a corporation by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint to the person designated as agent for service of process, the president, chief executive officer, or other head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or chief financial officer, a general manager, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process]; 417.10, subd. (a) [the proof of service must recite the name of the person to whom a copy of the summons and of the complaint were delivered, and, if appropriate, his or her title or the capacity in which he or she is served].)

DISCUSSION

Defendants move to quash service on the basis that “Plaintiff failed to serve Summons on Defendants and therefore this Court currently lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.” (Notice of Motion and Motion at p. 2:7-8.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed 15

to mail a copy of the summons and a return envelope with the complaint, and did not otherwise meet the requirements for service by mail.

The motion is supported by two declarations. The first is from Donna Brent. She states that she is a Legal Coordinator for Walgreens. As part of her duties, mail directed to Walgreens and current and former employees pertaining to civil litigation, including mail from registered agents for service, is sent to her. Attached to her declaration as exhibits A and B are copies of the envelopes and the complete contents of the envelopes sent by Plaintiff to Tim Wentorth (as CEO of Walgreens) and CT Corporation System. Those documents do not include a copy of the summons, a notice and acknowledgement of summons form, or return envelopes. (See Brent Decl., ¶¶ 1-5.)

The second declaration is from specially appearing defendant Lopez. He states that he has “not received any certified mail from Plaintiff that includes a Complaint or the Summons for this action.” (Lopez Decl., ¶ 2.) That evidence is sufficient to show that proper service has not been made on the moving Defendants.

Plaintiff does not meet his burden to show facts demonstrating effective service. He has not shown that service was ever completed. He has not shown that Defendants, or a person authorized to accept service on their behalf, executed and returned to Plaintiff a written acknowledgement of receipt of summons. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 415.30, subd. (c) [“Service of a summons pursuant to this section is deemed complete on the date a written acknowledgement of receipt of summons is executed, if such acknowledgement thereafter is returned to the sender.”], 417.10, subd. (a) [“If service is made by mail pursuant to Section 415.30, proof of service shall include the acknowledgment of receipt of summons in the form provided by that section or other written acknowledgment of receipt of summons satisfactory to the court.”].)

There is no evidence that the moving Defendants executed and returned a written acknowledgment of receipt of summons that conforms to the required form set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30, subdivision (b). The POSS filed with the court does not even indicate if copies of a notice and acknowledgement of receipt and postage paid return envelopes were mailed to Defendants. The only documents attached to the POSS are copies of certified mail receipts and printouts of USPS tracking information.

That does not establish proper service. (Tandy Corp. vs. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 911, 913 [“[A] postal service return receipt does not suffice as a substitute for an executed acknowledgement of receipt of summons.”])

Plaintiff’s oppositions do not establish valid service on either of the moving Defendants. They make arguments irrelevant to the motion to quash.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is denied.

Defendants’ motion to quash service of summons is granted.

An order to show cause regarding plaintiff’s failure to serve the defendants will be heard on February 18, 2027, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 10. The parties are encouraged to meet and confer about service.

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

17