DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV000816·sacramento·Civil·Debt Collection
Hearing todayDENIED

BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE vs ESCALERA

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Hearing date
Aug 26, 2026
Department
8C
Prevailing
Plaintiff
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffBARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE
DefendantSergio Escalera

Ruling

25CV000816: BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE vs ESCALERA 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16039062174

25CV000816: BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE vs ESCALERA 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 8C

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

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Defendant Sergio Escalera’s (“Defendant”) motion to quash service is ruled upon as follows.

On January 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendant for an unpaid credit card account.

On September 27, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendant via substitute service and mailed a copy of the Complaint to Defendant on October 1, 2025. (Declaration of Plaintiff's

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV000816: BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE vs ESCALERA 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 8C

Counsel, ¶ 3).

Defendant now moves to quash service.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20(b), substitute service is valid if personal service cannot be accomplished with “reasonable diligence.” The summons and complaint may then be left at Defendant's usual house, place of abode, or mailing address with a competent adult, followed by mailing a copy to the same address.

The proof of service filed with the Court states that it was served to “Jane Doe” at Defendant’s home address, and that a copy was also mailed to his home address.

Defendant argues that service should be quashed because the proof of service does not identify the person allegedly served by name. Without supporting legal authority, Defendant argues that providing only a vague physical description is insufficient and undermines the reliability of service and that courts require clarity and accountability in service documentation.

In opposition, Plaintiff explains that courts have explicitly upheld the use of fictitious names such as Jane Does when people do not provide their true legal names. See Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal. App. 4th 175,186. The statutory requirement in Code of Civil Procedure section 417.10 “is to enable the recipient to be located in the future, should the claim of service be challenged. The statement that [Jane Doe, Co- Occupant] received service at a specific address satisfies this purpose.” (Id. at 184.)

The Court finds that the proof of substituted service to “Jane Doe” at Defendant’s home was sufficient and that the service was proper.

Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share