Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 10/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Amended Complaint in Department 53

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:

Defendant in pro per Hongling Tian’s (“Defendant”)[1] motion to quash service of summons is DENIED.

Plaintiff filed proof the summons and complaint was personally served on Hongling Tian by a registered process server on January 9, 2025. (Proof of Service (“POS”), 02/05/2025.) “The return of a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.” (Evid. Code § 647.) Thus, Defendant has the burden of producing evidence to demonstrate that service did not occur was otherwise improper.

Significantly, Defendant does not deny she was personally served on January 9, 2025. (See Plaintiff Decl.) Defendant also fails to explain why service of the summon on January 9, 2025 failed to conform to the requirements for service. Instead, Defendant asks the Court to speculate that the initial service was invalid because Plaintiff made a second attempt at service on May 13, 2025. (See Plaintiff Decl., ¶ 7; POS, 02/24/2025.)

The second proof of service does not support a finding that the initial service did not occur. Upon review, it appears the second attempt at service included additional documents. Specifically, the second proof of service identifies a Notice of Right to Seek Punitive Damages and an Exemplary Damages Attachment that were not identified in the original proof. Given that additional documents were served on the second occasion, the second proof does not support a finding that the first service did not occur.

This conclusion is further supported by a letter from the process server attached to the second proof of service. In the letter, the process server states he saw Plaintiff in the driver’s seat of car, attempted to hand the documents to Plaintiff and, after Plaintiff closed the car door, left the documents on the car’s windshield. (POS, 02/24/2025.) The letter indicates the process server recognized Plaintiff because the process server has served Plaintiff in the past. (Ibid.) Notably, the process server identified in the second proof of service was the same process server who claims to have served Plaintiff personally on January 9, 2025. (Ibid; POS, 02/05/2025.) Thus, the second proof of service supports the inference that Plaintiff was personally served on January 9,

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 10/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Amended Complaint in Department 53

2025.

Moreover, the Court finds that the second proof of service complies with the requirements for personal service. A “person may not assert the failure of service when delivery was deliberately prevented wand where it can be inferred the person was aware of the nature of the correspondence.” (Sullivan v. Centinela Valley Union High School Dist. (2011) 194 CalApp.4th 69, 75.) In Trujillo v. Trujillo (1945) 71 Cal.App.2d 257, attempted to refuse service by rolling up a car window, after which the process server left the documents on the car windshield.

Under these circumstances, the Third District Court of Appeal found personal service was proper. Here, the proof of service indicates the process server explained he was providing Plaintiff legal documents and that Plaintiff thereafter closed the car door without responding. (POS, 02/05/2025.) Given the similarity of these circumstances to those in Trujillo, the Court finds the process server leaving the documents on the windshield constituted personal service.

In addition to quashing service, the moving memorandum requests the Court find Defendant is not a proper party and that the claims are time-barred. A motion to quash is not a proper procedure for asserting these arguments. Significantly, the notice of motion indicates Defendant is seeking to quash service on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction. Ordinarily, only the grounds asserted in the notice may be considered. (Hernandez v. National Dairy Products Co. (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 490; People v.

Sur. Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 719, 726.) Defendant failed to cite any authority explaining how contentions based on Defendant’s status as a proper party and the applicable statute of limitations relate to personal jurisdiction or why these arguments are otherwise properly raised in a motion to quash, nor does Defendant cite to any other authority for any other procedure that might be available to seek relief on those grounds. The Court therefore declines to consider these arguments on the merits, as they are not properly before the Court at this time.

The motion is denied. Defendant shall file a responsive pleading on or before October 11, 2025. (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10(c).)

Plaintiff’s requests, set forth in an opposition rather than a noticed motion, for an order compelling Defendant to hire counsel for non-moving defendant TZ Investment, Inc. or alternatively, to order mediation are not properly before the Court and will not be considered at this time.

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

[1] In the motion, Defendant also references service on TZ Investment Inc. Defendant is

appearing in pro per, and there is no indication that Defendant is an attorney licensed to practice in California. The law is well-established that “a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 10/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Amended Complaint in Department 53

represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) As such, the Court cannot and does not consider this motion to be brought on behalf of TZ Investment Inc.