Ruskey vs. Salman

Cal.App.4th 1126, 1131.) However, this burden shifts when a properly executed proof of service has been filed. Filing a proof of service that complies with the applicable statutory standards creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper. (Floveyor Int’l, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795; American Exp. Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390.)

Here, the proof of service of the summons and complaint filed by Plaintiff indicates it was served on March 16, 2026, on a “Female” with brown eyes “5’4”-5’7” tall” weighing 111-130 lbs. Defendant avers he is a male with blue eyes, 5’9” tall and approximately 160 lbs. At the time of service he was located at 1 Moonshell, Newport Coast, CA 92657, and not at the service address of 25132 Woolwich St., Laguna Hills, CA 92653.

Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, however, it has filed an amended proof of service of summons with an amended declaration of diligence stating that the summons and complaint was served by substituted service on a member of the household who would not provide her name. She was a female with brown eyes “5’4”-5’7” tall” weighing 111-130 lbs.

The summons and complaint was thereafter mailed to the address where the copies of the summons and complaint were left.

The filing of the amended proof of service of summons creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper. Defendant has not filed a reply disputing the amended proof of service. Thus, service is presumed to be proper.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

The Case Management Conference is continued to November 12, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department C12.

Clerk to give notice

3. Ruskey vs. Salman 1. Demurrer to Amended Complaint 2. Case Management Conference

NTS filed August 6, 2026. ROA 162

OSC re: Dismissal of Settled Case set for December 3, 2026. ROA 165