CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., vs GARNET STONE ROOFING SERVICES, INC.
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR ORDER ADAME vs WALMART CVRI2501757 AUTHORIZING CORONER TO INC. RELEASE PHOTOS OF DECEDENT Tentative Ruling:
The unopposed motion is granted.
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF CVRI2502988 INC., vs GARNET STONE SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT ROOFING SERVICES, INC. Tentative Ruling:
The motion is granted to set aside the default and default judgment for reason Defendant Zarate has demonstrated that she was not properly served with summons and the original Complaint because Plaintiff failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 412.30. “The court may ... on motion of either party after notice to the other party set aside any void judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(d).) “[A] default judgment [or default] entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.) The proof of service is stricken. A case management conference is scheduled for October 13, 2026 at 8:30 am in Dept. 3
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MENENDEZ vs MOTION TO SET ASIDE CVRI2503201 VICTORIA CLUB DISMISSAL Tentative Ruling:
This matter was filed on 6/4/2025. The complaint was to be served within 60 days. The Court issued an OSC re: proof of service on 1/2/26 set for 2/4/26. The Plaintiff filed a declaration pursuant to Local Rule 3.116 on 1/28/26 advising that 60 days was needed to complete service. The Court eventually continued the CMC and OSC to 4/9/2026. No further declaration was filed. The Court dismissed this matter on 4/8/2026 with notice being given to the Plaintiff. This motion was filed over 3 months later on 7/16/2026. The Defendant has specially appeared to oppose this request.
The Plaintiff seeks to set aside the dismissal based upon attorney neglect. However, there is a requirement that the neglect is excusable. In this case, Plaintiff argues that
Cited authorities
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?”