CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. VS. SHAX EXPRESS CARGO INC ET AL

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, Line 12. Defendant Shax Express Cargo, Inc.'s motion to quash is GRANTED.

Plaintiff has the evidentiary burden to demonstrate proper service and sufficient minimum contacts to warrant this court's exercise of jurisdiction. (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1440 ["[T]he burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service"].)

Plaintiff alleges that it effectuated personal service on defendant by serving its CEO with a copy of the summons and complaint in compliance with CCP 416.10(b). Plaintiff correctly notes that actual physical delivery of process is not necessary when a defendant is being recalcitrant. Cases recognize the sufficiency of attempted delivery in the presence of a defendant who refuses to accept the papers. (See Crescendo Corp. v. Shelted, Inc. (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 209, 212 [actual delivery unnecessary where defendant refuses the summons and complaint]; In re Ball (1934) 2 Cal.App.2d 578, 579 [process server came within twelve feet of petitioner, said "I have here another one of those things for you," tossed paper toward the petitioner, and added "Now you are served"]; Trujillo v.

Trujillo (1945) 71 Cal.App.2d 257, 260 [process server loudly explained nature of document through locked door of defendant's car and placed it under windshield wiper].)

In this case, the court watched the video of the alleged service (https://youtu.be/HcRsTT3aJFo). Viewed in a charitable light, the video at most is ambiguous. The court concludes that the video is inconsistent with the narrative process server Christopher Lemerise presents. The video does not show the process server ringing the doorbell or having any sort of conversation with a woman or a man. In fact, Lemerise's time at the front door is too brief to allow for all the events he testifies occurred. Based on this record, plaintiff fails to meet its burden of establishing proper service of process.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address.

=(302/JMQ) | |