WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs DANIEL FONDA

proceedings. The Request for Admissions are tantamount to Defendant admitting the causes of action alleged by Plaintiff. Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED as the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and the Answer in conjunction with the admissions deemed admitted does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. The Court orders Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and against Defendant Christopher J. Fusco for the principal sum of $15,256.74 plus costs in the amount of $430.00 for a total Judgment of $15,686.74. The Proposed Judgment will be signed by the Court. Plaintiff to give notice.

BANK vs ROSLYN RAMEY Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and reviewed the moving papers filed by Defendant Roslyn Ramey ("Defendant"), the opposition filed by Plaintiff Synchrony Bank ("Plaintiff"), and the relevant court records. Defendant's Motion to Quash Service of Summons ("Motion") was originally set for hearing on June 2, 2026. At that hearing, Defendant advised the Court that Plaintiff served the Summons and Complaint on Defendant's minor son. The Court continued the hearing to September 10, 2026 to permit Defendant to file a supplemental declaration.

On July 7, 2026, Defendant filed additional declarations under penalty of perjury from herself and from her son, Amir Morris. Defendant specially appears and moves to quash service of summons pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, contending she was not properly served and that the Court therefore lacks personal jurisdiction over her. Plaintiff contends Defendant was served by substituted service at Defendant's undisputed residence address--the same address used in Defendant's motion papers--on May 5, 2026, and that a copy of the Summons and Complaint was mailed to Defendant on May 6, 2026.

Plaintiff further argues Defendant had notice of the action because she filed the Motion on May 7, 2026. Plaintiff contends substituted service was valid and Defendant has not presented sufficient evidence to overcome the rebuttable presumption arising from the filed Proof of Service. Evidence Code section 647 creates a rebuttable presumption that service was properly effected when a registered process server files a proof of service. The party challenging service bears the burden to present sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption. (Evid.

Code, Sec.Sec. 647, 660.) Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20(b) governs substituted service and requires, among other things, that the summons and complaint be left with a competent member of the household who is at least 18 years of age. Here, a Proof of Service of Summons reflecting substituted service by a registered process server was filed on May 6, 2026, giving rise to the presumption under Evidence Code section 647. The Proof of Service states that "John Doe" was served on May 5, 2026 at 10:55 a.m., and estimates the age of the person served as 18-25 years old.

Defendant submits a declaration under penalty of perjury stating the process server left the documents with Defendant's son, who was 17 years old at the time of service. Defendant also submits a declaration under penalty of perjury from her son confirming he was served. On this record, the Court finds Defendant has rebutted the presumption of valid substituted service. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED. The clerk shall give notice. Case Number: 26NWLC28821 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: Y 26NWLC28821: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs DANIEL FONDA Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and reviewed the moving papers filed by Defendant Daniel Fonda's ("Defendant") Motion to Quash Service of Summons ("Motion"), including the supporting declaration.

Defendant's Motion was initially set for hearing on July 22, 2026. The Court continued the hearing on the

Motion to September 10, 2026 because it was unclear whether Defendant had served Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Plaintiff") with the Motion. On July 22, 2026, Defendant filed a Proof of Service indicating service of the Motion and Proposed Order on Plaintiff by mail on June 23, 2026. Defendant specially appears and moves to quash service of summons under Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") Sec. 418.10. Defendant contends that service is defective for the following reasons: (1) the SUM-100 Summons served in May 2026 was incomplete because of an unchecked "Notice to the Person Served" section and there was no service date; (2) Plaintiff's Proof of Service (POS-010) falsely certified the summons as completed "as an individual defendant"; and (3) Plaintiff failed to serve the Online Dispute Resolution flyer required by the Court's October 2017 Standing Order and failed to serve the ADR information package under CRC 3.221(c).

Defendant identifies himself as an attorney and appears in pro per. No opposition has been filed by Plaintiff. Applicable Legal Standards CCP Sec. 418.10 authorizes a defendant to move to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. A signed return of a registered process server creates a rebuttable presumption of proper service under Evidence Code Sec. 647; the presumption affects the burden of producing evidence, which is addressed by Evidence Code Sec. 660.

Analysis

Nature of Service and Presumptions On May 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service of Summons reflecting personal service by a registered process server, giving rise to the presumption under Evidence Code Sec. 647. The Proof of Service asserts personal service on Defendant at his Covina address on May 20, 2026 at 8:38 p.m., by registered process server Artak Meliksetyan, and indicates the summons "Notice to the Person Served" was completed "as an individual defendant." Under Evidence Code Sec. 647, the registered process server's declaration raises a rebuttable presumption of proper service, shifting to Defendant the burden of producing evidence to rebut that presumption per Evidence Code Sec. 660.

Alleged Defect: Incomplete SUM-100 "Notice to the Person Served" Defendant's declaration attaches as Exhibit 1 the SUM-100 form he asserts was served, showing the "Notice to the Person Served" checkboxes and service date line unmarked. In contrast, Plaintiff's filed POS-010 states that personal service on Defendant occurred on May 20, 2026, at 8:38 p.m., at 830 S. Calvados Ave., Covina, CA 91723-3403, and that the "Notice to the Person Served" on the summons "was completed as follows: as an individual defendant."

On the present record, Defendant's declaration, under penalty of perjury, and attached copy of the summons constitute evidentiary rebuttal to the registered server's statement that the "Notice to the Person Served" on the summons was completed. The Court finds Defendant's competent, specific declaration, coupled with the proffered summons copy, sufficient to overcome the presumption created by Evidence Code Sec. 647 as to the particular fact that the "Notice to the Person Served" was completed on the face of the summons actually delivered.

The absence of any opposition or counter-declaration from the process server or Plaintiff further leaves the presumption unrebutted in Plaintiff's favor on that point. The question, however, is whether the omission on the face of the served summons of the check-box "as an individual defendant" defeats otherwise valid personal service. Defendant cites no authority holding that failure to check the "Notice to the Person Served" box on a SUM-100, when an individual is personally handed the summons and complaint, renders service void.

The record shows personal delivery to Defendant himself, with identity confirmation, at a residential address. The POS-010 describes direct hand-to-hand service on "DANIEL FONDA," with identifying details, at 8:38 p.m. on May 20, 2026. On this record, even crediting that the checkbox on the summons was left unmarked, the manner of service shown is personal delivery to the named individual, which is sufficient to effect service under CCP Sec. 415.10. Accordingly, the Court concludes the unchecked "Notice to the Person Served" box on the copy of the summons delivered does not, by itself, establish noncompliance with the statutory requirements for personal delivery of a summons and complaint to an individual.

Alleged Noncompliance with Local Standing Order and CRC 3.221(c) Defendant contends Plaintiff failed to serve the Los Angeles County's Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) flyer

purportedly required by the October 17, 2017 Standing Order applicable to limited civil collection cases filed in the Southeast District (Norwalk). The Standing Order states each plaintiff "shall serve all named defendants with the Los Angeles County Consumer & Business Affairs Department's Online Dispute Resolution flyer." Defendant further asserts Plaintiff failed to serve the ADR information package required by CRC 3.221(c) "together with the complaint." The POS-010 lists the documents served and does not include the ODR flyer or an ADR information package.

Defendant cites no authority that failure to include the ODR flyer or the CRC 3.221(c) ADR package renders service of summons and complaint jurisdictionally defective such that it must be quashed. Absent such authority, the Court does not treat the omission of ADR materials as defeating service of the Summons and Complaint. The Court also notes that the October 17, 2017 Standing Order appears to be outdated and no longer applies to Collections cases. Other Complaints About Packet Order And Missing Date on Summons Defendant asserts the Summons was not placed on top of the packet, and the service date line on the summons was blank.

Defendant identifies no statute requiring the summons to be the top sheet or requiring the service date line on the summons to be completed for personal service to be valid, and he acknowledges CCP Sec. 415.10 validates service notwithstanding omission of the service date on the summons he received. RULING Plaintiff's filed proof of service raised a presumption of proper service. Defendant has presented evidence disputing completeness of the summons form, but not disputing that he was personally handed the summons and complaint.

On this record, Defendant has not met his burden to show that service failed to comply with the statutory method for personal service on an individual. Accordingly, the Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED. Clerk to give notice. | Home -->)" -->