DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV459133·santaclara·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

Bianca Andrade v. Aravind Rangaraj et al.

motion to quash service of summons

Hearing date
May 26, 2026
Department
10
Prevailing
Defendant
Next hearing
Jul 2, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBianca Andrade
DefendantAravind Rangaraj

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210

DATE: May 26, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 3 25CV459133 Bianca Andrade v. Defendant Aravind Rangaraj’s motion to quash service of summons. Aravind Rangaraj et (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10.) Notice is proper and the motion is al. unopposed. The motion is supported by declarations by Rangaraj and his office manager indicating that an individual delivered an incomplete summons, a civil case cover sheet, and the first page of the complaint in August 2025. No proof of service of summons has been filed in this action. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110(b) [proof of service of summons “must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint”].) The motion is GRANTED. An order to show cause re plaintiff’s failure to serve Rangaraj will take place on July 2, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 10. The court will prepare the order.

3

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share