Motion to quash service
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 partys 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. Plaintiffs 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.
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?”
Defendant filed a motion to quash Plaintiffs 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 Courts order of June 9, 2025.
Defendant set the second motion to quash for hearing on September 2, 2025. The Court denied Defendants second motion to quash on September 2, 2025. On September 25, 2025, the Court denied Defendants motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion to quash on September 2, 2025. Plaintiffs attorney filed proof of service of the notice of entry of order on September 30, 2025. On November 20, 2025, Plaintiffs 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. Defendants motion seeks an order declaring Plaintiffs proof of substitute service of the summons, filed on April 15, 2026, to be legally invalid.
Plaintiffs 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. Defendants motion to quash service of summons is denied because the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion. Plaintiffs request for entry of default was granted by the Clerks Office on April 15, 2026. The entry of default terminates a defendants 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. Plaintiffs attorney shall file and serve the notice of entry of order no later than June 10, 2026.