WEST OAKLAND DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC vs A-ONE TRUCKING

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 25CV119123: WEST OAKLAND DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC vs A-ONE TRUCKING 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to quash service; filed by A-One Trucking (Defendant) CRS# 361395862262 in Department 511 Tentative Ruling - 06/02/2026 Julie Wilensky The Motion to Quash Service filed by A-One Trucking on 05/04/2026 is Denied. NOTICE: All attorneys and unrepresented parties who contest the tentative ruling and request an opportunity to present their arguments at the hearing must notify all other parties of their intention to appear by telephone or in person no later than the day before the hearing, by 4:00 p.m.

PT. Parties and attorneys must also formally indicate their objection on eCourt and by sending an email message to the Department 511 clerk at Dept511@alameda.courts.ca.gov. The parties and attorneys must clearly indicate in their email messages the name of the case and the case number. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the Court if the Court has not directed oral argument by its tentative ruling and notice of a party’s intent to appear is not received by the deadline. See California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1) and Alameda County Superior Court Local Rule 3.30(d).

The motion of Specially Appearing Defendant Lakhbir Bhambra (dba A-One Trucking) (“Defendant”) to quash service of the summons and complaint, pursuant to CCP § 418.10(a)(1), is DENIED. Plaintiff West Oakland Development Group LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint for commercial unlawful detainer, pursuant to CCP § 1161(2), on April 17, 2025. The property at issue is located at 1357 5th Street, in Oakland. Plaintiff attached a copy of the Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit, dated March 24, 2025, to the Complaint.

See CCP § 1166(d)(1)(A). According to the Three Day Notice, Defendant allegedly owed $63,000.00. On April 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed proof of substitute service of the summons and complaint on Defendant. Plaintiff’s registered process server, Tim Ault, stated in the proof of service that he delivered the papers to a security guard at the property on April 23, 2025. Another process server, Jeff Lancaster, stated in his declaration that he mailed copies of the papers served by Mr. Ault to Defendant on April 24, 2025.

Defendant filed a motion to quash Plaintiff’s substitute service on April 30, 2025. On June 9, 2025, the Court granted the motion to quash. The Court explicitly advised Defendant that his motion was granted despite his clear failure to comply with the notice requirements set forth in CCP § 1167.4. On June 13, 2025, Defendant filed and served the notice of entry of order. On July 25, 2025, Defendant filed his second motion to quash service of summons. Defendant again failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth in CCP § 1167.4(a) despite the clear reference to the notice requirement in the Court’s order of June 9, 2025.

Defendant set the second motion to quash for hearing on September 2, 2025. The Court denied Defendant’s second motion to quash on September 2, 2025. On September 25, 2025, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion to quash on September 2, 2025. Plaintiff’s attorney filed proof of service of the notice of entry of order on September 30, 2025. On November 20, 2025, Plaintiff’s attorney filed and served an amended notice of entry of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 25CV119123: WEST OAKLAND DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC vs A-ONE TRUCKING 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to quash service; filed by A-One Trucking (Defendant) CRS# 361395862262 in Department 511 September 25, 2025 order. Defendant Bhambra filed his third motion to quash service of the summons on May 4, 2026. Defendant’s motion seeks an order declaring Plaintiff’s proof of substitute service of the summons, filed on April 15, 2026, to be legally invalid.

Plaintiff’s proof of service of the summons states that its employee or agent, Cecilio Alberto, served Defendant with the summons pursuant to CCP § 415.20(b) on July 7, 2025. Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons is denied because the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion. Plaintiff’s request for entry of default was granted by the Clerk’s Office on April 15, 2026. The entry of default “terminates a defendant’s rights to take any further affirmative steps in the litigation until either its default is set aside or a default judgment is entered.” See Devlin v.

Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385-386; see also W.A. Rose Co. v. Municipal Court (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 67, 72. The Court will prepare the order. The court clerk will mail a copy of the order to the parties. Plaintiff’s attorney shall file and serve the notice of entry of order no later than June 10, 2026.