LINDA HARRINGTON ET AL VS. ALEJANDRA GARCIA ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Friday, August 1, 2025, Line 8. DEFENDANT ALEJANDRA GARCIA's MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS.

Defendant Alejandra Garcia's motion to quash service of summons is granted. Plaintiffs Linda Harrington, et al.'s request for monetary sanctions is denied. "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." (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413 [internal quotation marks, citation, and footnote omitted].)

Plaintiffs Linda Harrington, et al. presented no evidence to carry their burden that effective service was made. Plaintiffs and Defendant agree that personal service was not executed. However, on the proof of service, section 5(a) was checked, indicating personal service. Plaintiffs' statement of facts identifies their process server as a registered process server but checked box 7(e)(1) stating that the server was not a registered California process server. The proof of service provided was overall prepared in a confusing way and contradicts Plaintiffs' statement of the facts and declaration.

While Plaintiffs mention multiple times in their opposition and in Mr. Hackett's declaration a Declaration of Due Diligence which outlines the previous five attempts to personally serve Defendant, no such declaration was attached or submitted to the court. The proof of service, lack of a declaration of due diligence, and Mr. Hackett's declaration combined do not overcome the plaintiffs' burden to demonstrate that there was effective service.

Actual notice may defeat a motion to quash only when there is substantial compliance with the statute. (Ramos v. Homeward Residential, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1443-1444.) While Defendant received actual notice of the lawsuit and subsequently filed this motion to quash, there was no showing by plaintiffs of substantial compliance.

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.

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) |