Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons
Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR C61 HON. JENNIFER M. MCCARTNEY
Date: 5/27/2026 Courtroom Rules and Notices
The Court will continue to upload tentative rulings as they are completed. Please be sure to keep checking until 8:30 AM on the day of your hearing.
Written responses, oppositions, or filings that are filed later than 12:15 PM the day before the hearing on the motion will go on second call by the Court for the Court to have an opportunity to review any lastminute filings. If a party files a written response, opposition, or any filing after 12:15 PM on the day before the hearing, the party must ensure they are available for the court's afternoon calendar the day of the hearing.
Submitting on tentative rulings: If all counsel intend to submit on the tentative ruling and do not desire oral argument, please advise the Courtroom Clerk or Courtroom Attendant by calling (657) 622-5261 – both counsel need to state they are submitting on the tentative. Please do not call the Department unless all parties submit to the tentative ruling. If all sides submit on the tentative ruling and so advise the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the Court’s final ruling, and the prevailing party shall give notice of the ruling and prepare an order for the Court’s signature if appropriate under Cal. R. Ct. 3.1312.
Non-appearances: If nobody appears for the hearing and the Court has not been notified that all parties submit on the tentative ruling, the Court shall determine whether the matter is taken off calendar or the tentative ruling becomes the final ruling. The Court also might make a different order at the hearing. (Lewis v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 436, 442, fn. 1.)
# Case Name Tentative 9 30-2026-01563933 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service Park II Spectrum LLC of Summons (ROA 8), Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 18), and Plaintiff’s vs. Chen Objection to Defendant’s Evidence (ROA 20).
The Court takes Judicial Notice of Proofs of Service (ROA 12, 14 & 16) and Complaint (ROA 2).
First, Plaintiff’s Opposition references an “Exhibit A” which is purported to be attached to the Opposition, but no such document is attached to the Opposition filed with the Court. Additionally, Plaintiff references that on the Proofs of Service, there is a physical description of Ms. Joanna Zhu, but no such description is on the proofs of service filed with the Court (see ROA 12, 14, & 16).
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?”
As to the Plaintiff’s Objections: Objection #1 – Overruled. Objection #2 – Overruled. Objection #3 – Overruled.
The Defendants signed a lease for the premises address. There is no documentation on the lease or in the Motion to Quash Service that Defendants have another address for service. Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service lists their address as 7328 Spectrum, Irvine, CA 92618, which is the premises address. A registered process server who made multiple attempts at personal service may proceed with substituted service under Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20. Here, the registered process server obtained the name of the person who answered the door at the residence, and Ms.
Zhu accepted the documents – there is no indication that Ms. Zhu refused service or indicated that she was not an occupant of the household. Case law such as Zirbes v. Stratton (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1407, 1416-1417 allows for substituted service, which is reasonably calculated to give notice – the circumstances here are reasonable that it would give notice to the Defendants.
The Court DENIES the Motion to Quash Service of Summons.
Defendants are ordered to file a responsive pleading within 5 calendar days.
Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling via email and mail.
10 30-2026-01567675 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service Catherine S. Burnett of Summons (ROA 11). As Trustee Of The Estela Gomez Trust The Court takes Judicial Notice of Proof of Service (ROA 8). vs. Romo California Evidence Code Section 647 establishes a rebuttable presumption that a proof of service signed by a registered process server is true. It shifts the burden of proving lack of service to the defendant, rather than requiring the plaintiff to prove proper service. Here, registered process server David Cunningham #1895 declared under penalty of perjury that he personally served the defendant on May 9, 2026, at 7:40 AM. Defendant has provided no evidence to rebut the presumption under Evidence Code section 647 other than her own self-serving statements that she was not personally served.
The Court DENIES the Motion to Quash Service of Summons.
The Court orders the Defendant to file a responsive pleading within 5 business days.
The Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling.
11 30-2026-01567279 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer to the 2525 Main Apartment, Complaint (ROA 11) and the Complaint (ROA 2). LP vs. Xie The Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED. The attached Three-Day Notice To Permanently Perform Covenant or Quit attached to the Complaint fails to state the premises address, “within three days...you are required to do one of the following,” but only lists one option without listing the quit section of the notice. It appears to the Court as if the notice is missing a page or more. If Plaintiff can provide documentation to the Court that all of the required information was provided to the Defendants at the time of service of the Notice to Permanently Perform Covenant or Quit, the Court will allow the