Motion to quash service of summons
June 2, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 40 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 16 26-CLJ-00377 AUDREY MURRAY VS. NICOLE R HOLT, ET AL.
AUDREY MURRAY ROBERT G. HOWIE NICOLE R HOLT PRO SE
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Nicole R. Holt’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.
“Compliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction.” (Rios v. Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 871, 880; see Renoir v. Redstar Corp. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1152.) A defendant may challenge a purported attempt to serve process and move to quash service of summons. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) On such a motion, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing compliant service of process by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160.)
Here, a proof of service of summons, purporting service on Defendant Nicole R. Holt by personal delivery, was filed on February 6, 2026. The proof—signed under penalty of perjury on January 29, 2026, by Plaintiff Audrey Murray’s counsel Robert G. Howie—states that he personally delivered the summons and Complaint to Holt on January 29, 2026, in Department 4 of the Court at 400 County Center in Redwood City. (Feb. 26, 2026 Proof of Service, §§ 3–5.)
Holt presents evidence in the form of her declaration stating that she was not present in that location nor served with copies of the summons and Complaint on January 29, 2026. (Mar. 2, 2026 Motion to Quash, p. 5 (“Holt Decl.”), ¶¶ 3–4.) The declaration further states that, when Holt was present in the courtroom the next day, Howie delivered only copies of Murray’s thenpending motion to seal. (Id., at ¶¶ 4–5.) This evidence directly contradicts the original proof.
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?”
Murray’s primary argument is that service of process is not necessary because Holt conceded jurisdiction when Holt appeared ex parte for emergency relief sealing her and another party’s confidential information in the Complaint. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 415.50, subd. (a) [“general appearance by a party is equivalent to personal service of summons on such party”].) But only a general appearance waives the requirement of service; a special appearance does not. “An appearance at a hearing at which ex parte relief is sought, or an appearance at a hearing for which an ex parte application for a provisional remedy is made, is not a general appearance and does not constitute a waiver of the right to make a motion under Section 418.10.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.11.)
Furthermore, “[w]hat is determinative [of whether an appearance is deemed general or special] is whether defendant takes a part in the particular action which in some manner recognizes the
June 2, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 41 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ authority of the court to proceed.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.) By her appearing and requesting her personal information in the Complaint be sealed, Holt did not presume the Court had any jurisdiction over her but only over its own records. The expressly limited appearance ex parte for relief unrelated to the merits of the litigation was thus not a general appearance, and Murray must carry her burden of demonstrating proper service of process.
In the alternative, Murray points to an amended proof of service filed on April 29, 2026. Prefacing the proof is a declaration from Howie acknowledging that the previous proof was incorrect about the date of service and stating that it should have said Holt had been served “by substituted service” on “January 30, 2026.” (Apr. 29, 2026 Notice of Errata, ¶ 4.) A copy of the corrected proof is purportedly attached, though the attached proof states Holt was served by personal service on January 30, 2026. (Id., at exh. A, § 5.)
The Court resolves this competing evidence as to whether Holt was served a copy of the summons and Complaint in favor of Holt. The inconsistencies and errors in Howie’s declarations weigh against their reliability. And the declaration of Sangeeta Singh, which attempts to state what was contained in the set of documents served in the courtroom on January 30, 2026, does not set forth facts establishing personal knowledge of what was in fact served. (See Apr. 30, 2026 Memorandum of Points & Authorities, p. 4, ¶ 3.)
Accordingly, Murray has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Holt has been served a copy of the summons and complaint in compliance with part 2, title 5, chapter 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The motion is granted, and any service of process on Holt purportedly completed prior to June 2, 2026, is hereby quashed.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, defendant Nicole R. Holt shall prepare, for the court’s signature, a written order consistent with this ruling, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and shall provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court.
POSTED: 3:00 PM