Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons
The Court Orders Plaintiff to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.
7 30-2026-01564845 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Quash BRE-FMCA, LLC Service of Summons (ROA 25) and Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 28). vs. Rios The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Proof of Service of Summons (ROA 10).
A registered process server who made multiple attempts at personal service may proceed with substituted service under Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20. Here, the registered process server, George Craig (#2019267578), signed under penalty of perjury that he made multiple attempts to serve the defendant personally before proceeding with substituted service. On the third attempt to serve, the registered process server provided the documents to a woman at the premises, who answered the door, provided a physical description, took the paperwork, and refused to provide the registered process server with her name.
There is no indication that “Jane Doe” was not an occupant of the household or refused to accept the documents. Case law such as Zirbes v. Stratton (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1407, 1416-1417 allows for substituted service, which is reasonably calculated to give notice – the circumstances here are reasonable that it would give notice to the Defendant.
The Court DENIES the Motion to Quash Service of Summons.
Defendant is ordered to file a responsive pleading within 5 calendar days.
Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling.
8 30-2026-01567293 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Strike (ROA Nguyen vs. Rios 15) and the Complaint (ROA 2).
The Court DENIES the Motion to Strike.
The Court orders the Defendants to file an Answer within 5 business days.
The Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.
9 30-2026-01569587 The Court has read and considered the Defendants’ Motion to Quash Bridge WF Ca Service of Summons (ROA 13 & 18) and Plaintiff’s Oppositions (ROA 24 Crystal View LP vs. &26). Vickers The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Proof of Service of Summons (ROA 8 & 10).
California Evidence Code Section 647 creates a rebuttable presumption that a proof of service signed by a registered process server is true. It shifts the burden of proving lack of service to the defendant, rather than requiring the plaintiff to prove proper service. Here, registered process server Justin Martin (2655) declared under penalty of perjury that he personally served Ms. Vickers on Thursday, May 14, 2026, at 8:39 PM (ROA 10) and Ms.
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?”
Sims on Saturday, May 16, 2026, at 1:51 PM (ROA 8). Defendants have provided no evidence to rebut the presumption under Evidence Code Section 647 other than their own self-serving statements that they were not personally served and that the documents were left on the doorstep.
The Court DENIES the Defendants' Motion to Quash.
Defendants are ordered to file a responsive pleading within 5 business days.
The Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.
10 30-2026-01571329 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer to the Posada vs. De La Complaint (ROA 13) and the Complaint (ROA 1). Luz Rivera The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Proof of Service by Posting (ROA 28, 30, 32, & 34) and the Application to Serve Summons by Posting (ROA 11).
The Court did not sign an order to serve summons by posting in this matter. Service of the Summons is not proper as there is no Court order to serve by posting and mailing in this matter.
The Application to Serve Summons by Posting is defective because it lacked a separate due diligence statement for each defendant, signed by the declarant. The Court DENIES without prejudice the Application for Order to Serve via Posting.
The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer but finds that service of the Complaint was improper.
Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Summons and Complaint in compliance with the California Code of Civil Procedure. Once the Defendants are served with the Summons and Complaint, Defendants have 10 calendar days to file a responsive pleading.
The Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling.
11 30-2026-01571601 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer to the Anaheim Complaint (ROA 12), the Complaint (ROA 2) and Plaintiff’s Opposition Multifamily LLC vs. (ROA 20). Gutierrez The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer. The Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 5 business days.
The Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling.
12 30-2026-01567675 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer to the Catherine S. Burnett Complaint (ROA 19) and the Complaint (ROA 2). As Trustee Of The Estela Gomez Trust A demurrer to a complaint challenges the complaint's facial sufficiency and vs. Romo that of its attachments to the complaint's four corners only. Defendant raises issues of ownership, the ability to sue, and the facts surrounding how the