| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion to set aside entry of default; Motion to quash service of summons
6. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF CVPS2509678 DAHL VS GREENBERG DEFAULT Tentative Ruling: Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default is Denied.
The Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default is also included in Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and will be addressed under that combined motion.
7. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF CVPS2509678 DAHL VS GREENBERG SUMMONS; MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT Tentative Ruling: Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) permits the court to vacate a void judgment or order. “[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. Thus, a default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).)
A summons is a form of court process issued in the course of a judicial proceeding. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 17(b)(7).) “A summons is the process by which a court acquires personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil action.” (MJS Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 555, 557.)
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10(a), a defendant may file a motion to quash service of summons on the following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction; (2) inconvenient forum; or (3) dismissal pursuant to a delay in prosecution. The motion must be brought on or before the last day to plead or any further time for good cause. (Id. at § 418.10(a).)
When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process, the plaintiff has the burden to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving the facts requisite to an effective service. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) However, a registered process server creates a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, that the facts stated in the declaration are true. (
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?”
Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20(b) permits substituted service at a person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business or usual mailing address. For individuals, there must be a showing that the summons “cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered.” (Id. at § 415.20.) This usually requires two or three attempts to personally serve. (Rodriguez v. Cho (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 742, 750; American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 389.)
The summons must be left with a “competent member of the household” or person “apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business or usual mailing address.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20.) “Service must be made upon a person whose ‘relationship with the person to be served makes it more likely than not that they will deliver process to the named party.’” (Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim Group, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1387, 139.)
Plaintiff has submitted a declaration in sur-reply that indicates service occurred at while “Daniel” was retrieving mail from a mailbox marked “10957.” A photo of the mailbox shows that the mailbox is by the walkway to the house. The process server declares that Daniel had Defendant’s mail. The process server acknowledged that the front door was obstructed with the side front gate as the primary point of entry. 10957 is the house number that Defendant uses in her mailing address in her moving papers.
Furthermore, in Defendant’s reply declaration, she attached the mail she receives, which indicates she receives mail for Michael O’Hickey, Clinton Meeker, Gary Alexander Yguado, Bill Greenberg, Marta Wilson, and Tracy Ritchie. The process server, when speaking with the neighbors, reported that there were multiple individuals who entered and exited through the rear gate. As such, Plaintiff’s evidence is more credible than Defendant’s evidence.
The court disregards Defendant’s supplemental declaration filed on 5.15.26, as this was done in direct violation of the court’s order on 5.14.26, that further briefing by Defendant shall be permitted.
Motion to Quash Service of Summons DENIED
Motion to Set Aside Default DENIED
Case Management Conference and OSC for 7.06.26 confirmed.