| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Notice Of Motion To Quash Summons
Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Tuesday, September 16, 2025, Line 5. DEFENDANT NANCY WAN's Motion To Quash Summons.
Specially appearing defendant Nancy Wan contends the court lacks jurisdiction over her due to DNF Associates LLCs failure to properly serve the summons. The court denies her motion to quash because DNF Associates LLC, has carried its burden of proving proper service.
On this motion, DNF bears the burden of proving proper service. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413 ["When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service."].)
Here, DNF has filed a proof of service executed by a registered California process server. On its face, it has no apparent defects and indicates personal service on August 23, 2023. The process server's declaration states that Wan was personally served at her home address on August 23, 2023. The process server's declaration includes a description of Wan that is similar to Wan's description of her height and weight; the differences between the process server's description and Wan's are not so stark that they call into question the veracity of the process server's declaration. Wan's declaration attaches timesheets to show that she was working at the purported time of service, but as DNF notes, Wan's declaration does not show where the work was performed.
Evidence Code, section 647, "the return of a process server .... establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return." Evaluating all the evidence, the court concludes that DNF has carried its burden of proving that Wan was properly served.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA) | |