Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 08/11/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint in Department 16D

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

TENTATIVE RULING:

Self-represented Defendant Hongling Tian’s (“Defendant Tian”) demurrer to Plaintiff Vay Williams’ (“Plaintiff”) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is DROPPED from calendar for defective service.

While Defendant Tian has filed a proof of service with the Court indicating the demurrer and supporting papers were served by mail on Plaintiff, there is no indication that Defendant Tian has served co-Defendant, Changjiang Li (“Defendant Li”) with the demurrer.

The Court notes that co-Defendant Li’s motion to quash service of summons was granted on May 7, 2025, thus removing Defendant Li from the action as of that date. (See May 7, 2025 Minute Order Regarding Motion to Quash.) Nonetheless, after making this motion, Defendant Li has made a number of filings with the Court including, but not limited to, the following:

 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions And Request Court Impose Sanctions Against Plaintiff (Filed September 17, 2025);  Notice of Motion and Motion for Order to Remove or Seal Confidential Documents from Previously Filed Documents (Filed October 9, 2025);  “Former Defendant Changjiang Li (Doe #7) and Doe #7’s Counsel Lisa Liu’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike ” (Filed March 17, 2026); and  “Former Defendant Changjiang Li (Doe 37)’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Doe #7’s Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Quash Service ” (Filed July 19, 2026).

A party who seeks relief on any basis other than a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction will be deemed to have made a general appearance. (Dial 800 v. Fesbinder (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 32, 52.) The statutory list of what acts constitute an appearance (i.e., filing an answer, demurrer, motion to strike, etc.) is not exclusive. (See Hamilton v.

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 08/11/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint in Department 16D

Asbestos Corp., (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147 [citing to Code of Civil Procedure section 1014].) “[R]ather the term may apply to various acts which, under all of the circumstances, are deemed to confer jurisdiction of the person. [Citation.] What is determinative is whether defendant takes a part in the particular action which in some manner recognizes the authority of the court to proceed.” (Ibid., quoting Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1397.) Thus, courts have found that when a defendant seeks affirmative relief, or opposes a motion the merits (without confining himself/herself to the objection of lack of jurisdiction over his/her person), the defendant has appeared. (People v.

Ciancio (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 175, 192 [“Thus, opposing a motion on other than jurisdictional grounds has been held to constitute a general appearance.”]; Marriage of Torres (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1381.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 410.50, “[a] general appearance by a party is equivalent to personal service of summons on such party.” Thus, once a general appearance has been made, the defendant is entitled to notice of all subsequent proceedings under Code of Civil Procedure section 1014. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1014 [“After appearance, a defendant or the defendant’s attorney is entitled to notice of all subsequent proceedings of which notice is required to be given. Where a defendant has not appeared, service of notice or papers need not be made upon the defendant.”)

Here, Defendant Li filed multiple substantive oppositions in addition to his affirmatively made motion to seal since his motion to quash was granted in May 2025. Defendant Li did not limit his opposition to an objection (or his affirmative motion) on the basis of lack of jurisdiction over him. (See, e.g., Defendant Li’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Filed march 17, 2026.) Accordingly, while the Court’s prior ruling quashing service of the summons and complaint on co-Defendant Li remains in effect insofar as co-Defendant Li remains unserved by such documents (such that no default may be taken or responsive pleading thereto is due), Defendant Li has otherwise made general appearances in this action after his motion to quash service of summons was granted.

Accordingly, for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 1014, because he is a party who has otherwise appeared in this case, Defendant Li was entitled to notice of the present demurrer. Because there is no proof of service on file indicating that Defendant Li was served with this motion, this motion must be DROPPED as defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)

Further, Defendant Tian cannot cure this defect by filing any amended proof of service (assuming Defendant Tian had timely served the motion on Defendant Li) given that no proof of service for this motion can be filed at this late juncture. (CRC Rule 3.1300(c) [“[p]roof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 08/11/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint in Department 16D

before the time appointed for the hearing”].)

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