WESTON, et al. vs WIP 800 J LOFTS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al.

26CV008117: WESTON, et al. vs WIP 800 J LOFTS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

Defendant WIP 800 J Lofts L.P.’s (“Defendant”) motion to quash service of summons and complaint is ruled upon as follows.

This is an action by tenants against their landlord. Pro per plaintiffs Asya Weston and Corinne Marshall (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed their complaint on April 4, 2026. The proof of service of summons and complaint indicates that Defendant was purportedly served on June 23, 2026, at 800 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95864, by serving “Lisa Cook/Employee c/o Office Managers.” (Declaration of Saima Aslam (“Aslam Decl.”), Ex. B.)

Defendant moves to quash on the ground that Ms. Cook is not Defendant’s designated agent for service of process, nor is she authorized by statute to accept service on Defendant’s behalf. Defendant provides evidence that its designated agent for service of process is Timothy M. Cronan, located at 2150 River Plaza Dr., Ste. 450, Sacramento, California 95833. (Aslam Decl., Ex. D.) Defendant’s general partner is identified as PREP CA General Partner, LLC. (Ibid.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10[1] provides, in pertinent part: “(a) A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one of or more of the following purposes: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. ”

On a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, 'the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that ‘minimum contacts’ exist between defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.' (Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.) The burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that all jurisdictional criteria are met. (Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232–1233.)

The Court notes that while the motion was not filed or noticed to be heard within the requisite times provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10; Plaintiffs failed to object on this basis. As such, the Court finds good cause to hear the motion. (See Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1, 16-17 [where no objection made to the timeliness of the motion, court may hear motion on the merits outside the statutory period].) The Court, in its discretion, will also consider Plaintiffs’ untimely opposition that was filed only six court days prior to the hearing.

Pursuant to Section 416.40, a summons may be served on a partnership by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint “to the person designated as agent for service of process in a statement filed with the Secretary of State or to a general partner or the general manager of the partnership.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 416.40(a).)

26CV008117: WESTON, et al. vs WIP 800 J LOFTS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 16C

Here, Ms. Cook is neither the Defendant’s designated agent for service of process nor a general partner.

Relying on Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 295, Plaintiffs contend that service was proper because Ms. Cook “occupied a position of meaningful responsibility within WIP’s property-management operation and regularly acted as an intermediary between WIP and its tenants.” (Opposition, 3:14-15.) Plaintiffs also note that in connection with the unlawful detainer action, Ms. Cook submitted a declaration as Defendant’s “authorized agent” regarding Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the stipulation for entry of judgment. (Declaration of Asya Weston (“Weston Decl.”), Ex. A.)

In Gibble, the defendant corporation, Car-Lene Research, Inc. (“Car-Lene”), moved to set aside a default judgment. At the time the lawsuit was filed, Car-Lene was a suspended corporation due to failure to file tax returns, and it had no registered agent for service of process. The court concluded that a suspended domestic corporation that continues to operate can be validly served under section 416.10 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The manager of Car-Lene’s regional office, Jean Coddington, was deemed a “general manager” through whom the corporation could be served.

It explained that the term “general manager” “includes any agent of the corporation ‘of sufficient character and rank to make it reasonably certain that the defendant will be apprised of the service made.’” (Gibble, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at 313.) The evidence showed that Ms. Coddington “had sole, unfettered authority to hire and fire employees, to authorize payment of their wages, to authorize or withhold payments to interview subjects, and to conduct Car–Lene’s core business activities in the San Francisco area, apparently without oversight from any other manager or officer of the corporation.” (Ibid.)

In contrast, here the Court is not dealing with a suspended corporation that had no registered agent for service of process. Defendant had a designated agent for service of process. Moreover, the fact that Ms. Cook filed a declaration as Defendant’s “authorized agent” in the unlawful detainer action, does not show that she was a “general manager” of Defendant. Ms. Cook’s declaration simply provides some facts surrounding the stipulation and Plaintiffs’ default thereof. Plaintiffs fail to satisfy their burden to demonstrate that Ms. Cook’s role was “of sufficient character and rank to make it reasonably certain that the defendant will be apprised of the service made.” (Gibble, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at 313.)

In addition, whether Defendant had actual notice of the lawsuit does not change the fact that Defendant has shown that service was not proper. Actual notice is not “a substitute for proper service and is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction.” (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 392.) “[N]o California appellate court has gone so far as to uphold a service of process solely on the ground the defendant received actual notice when there has been a complete failure to comply with the statutory requirements for service.” (Summers v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV008117: WESTON, et al. vs WIP 800 J LOFTS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 16C

McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 414.)

Accordingly, the motion to quash the summons and complaint is GRANTED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

Moving counsel’s notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact Plaintiffs and advise Plaintiffs of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Plaintiffs prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail 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 it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV008117: WESTON, et al. vs WIP 800 J LOFTS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 16C

https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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

[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.