ADIL AIT OUCHRAA VS. OUAHIBA KHOURCHECH ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC21596795 - September 4, 2026 Hearing date: September 4, 2026 Case number: CGC21596795 Case title: ADIL AIT OUCHRAA VS. OUAHIBA KHOURCHECH ET AL Case Number: | | CGC21596795 | Case Title: | | ADIL AIT OUCHRAA VS. OUAHIBA KHOURCHECH ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-09-04 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Dismiss | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for September 4, 2026, line 1. DEFENDANT OUAHIBA KHOURCHECH'S Motion to Dismiss.

Defendant's motion to dismiss for failing to serve defendant within three years of commencing this action is denied. (See Code of Civil Procedure, 583.210(a); 583.250.)

Plaintiff commenced this action on November 23, 2021. Plaintiff obtained an order for service by publication on June 1, 2023, and service on defendant was effectuated later that year. The court entered defendant's default on April 4, 2024. On June 20, 2025, the court vacated the default. The written order does not explain the precise reasons for the relief. (Farinaro Decl., Ex. I.)

The court does not assume that Judge Tong found default void rather than voidable, and the written order does not so state. (See Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1206 ["while a court's oral statements may be illustrative of its thinking, it is the court's written order that constitutes the ruling"].) Moreover, defendant does not convincingly explain how the 2023 service was "void" and did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 415.50. The court therefore cannot conclude that service did not occur within three years of filing this complaint.

In Carr v. Kamins (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 929, the court found that the service by publication violated due process because the affidavit of diligence only sought to locate the decedent and there was no reasonable effort to locate the defaulted party, an interested defendant. The affidavit of diligence was conclusory on its face. (Id., at p. 936.) In County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1215, the court vacated a default judgment based on a false proof of service.

Here, plaintiff requested a skip trace, retained a private detective, and believed that he had defendant's proper address. (Guzman Decl., pars. 3-9 (4/3/23).) There is no showing of a willful attempt to violate defendant's due process rights or that the 2023 service by publication was defective on its face. Thus, service occurred within three years of commencement of this action, and relief under the cited sections is unavailable.

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) |