MAHTABEH MA, LLC vs GUO, et al.

26CV195392: MAHTABEH MA, LLC vs GUO, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to Quash the Purported Service of Summons and Complaint; filed by Shun Guo (Defendant) CRS# 588042116144 in Department 511

Tentative Ruling - 09/01/2026 Julie Wilensky

The Motion to Quash MOTION TO QUASH THE PURPORTED SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT filed by Shun Guo on 08/06/2026 is Granted.

NOTICE: All attorneys and unrepresented parties who contest the tentative ruling and request an opportunity to present their arguments at the hearing must notify all other parties of their intention to appear by telephone or in person no later than the day before the hearing, by 4:00 p.m. PT. Parties and attorneys must also formally indicate their objection on eCourt and by sending an email message to the Department 511 clerk at Dept511@alameda.courts.ca.gov. The parties and attorneys must clearly indicate in their email messages the name of the case and the case number. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the Court if the Court has not directed oral argument by its tentative ruling and notice of a party’s intent to appear is not received by the deadline. See California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1) and Alameda County Superior Court Local Rule 3.30(d).

The motion of Specially Appearing Defendant Shun Guo (aka “Daniel Guo”) (dba Giant Bull Custom Auto House) to quash Plaintiff’s substitute service of the summons, pursuant to CCP §§ 418.10(a)(1) and 1167.4, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendant for commercial unlawful detainer on June 25, 2026. The property is located at 6995 Central Avenue, Unit C, in Newark. Plaintiff filed its proof of service of summons on August 6, 2026. Plaintiff’s registered process server, Len Warren, states under penalty of perjury that he successfully served Defendant Guo with the summons by substitute service on July 6, 2026. Mr. Warren states that after two earlier unsuccessful attempts to personally serve Defendant Guo with the summons at his business, he completed substitute service on July 6, 2026 by giving the summons, complaint, civil case cover sheet, and prejudgment claim of right to possession to the individual apparently in charge of Defendant’s business on July 6, 2026, at 9:39 a.m.

Mr. Warren provides a physical description of the individual in the proof of service of summons. Mr. Warren states in his declaration of diligence that an Asian female at the office took a picture of him on July 6, 2026.

Defendant Guo contends that Plaintiff has not met its burden of establishing proper service pursuant to CCP § 415.20(b), because the facts in the proof of service are not true. Defendant Guo states that he was at the office every day during business hours from June 25, 2026 to July 6, 2026. He claims that there would not have been any reason to serve him with the summons pursuant to CCP § 415.20(b). Although the facts set forth in the proof of service of summons are presumptively correct pursuant to Evidence Code § 647, Defendant has presented sufficient facts to rebut the presumption in this case.

Defendant’s motion to quash must be granted because Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to rebut the evidence presented by Defendant in support 26CV195392: MAHTABEH MA, LLC vs GUO, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to Quash the Purported Service of Summons and Complaint; filed by Shun Guo (Defendant) CRS# 588042116144 in Department 511 of his motion. See Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413 (plaintiff bears the burden of proving valid service); and Dill v.

Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-1440 (same).

The Court will prepare the order. The court clerk will deliver a copy of the order to the parties. .Defendant shall file and serve the notice of entry of order no later than September 9, 2026.