Baptiste v. Baetz CA4/3

Filed 7/18/25 Baptiste v. Baetz CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JETTA J. BAPTISTE,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G063897

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2021- 01218695) DEBRA BAETZ et al., OPINION Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David J. Hesseltine, Judge. Affirmed. Motion to augment record denied. Jetta J. Baptiste, in pro. per., for Appellant. Foran Glennon and Gabriel Ullrich for Respondents.

Plaintiff Jetta J. Baptiste appeals from an order granting a motion to quash services of summonses on defendants, the County of Orange, its board of supervisors, and the Orange County Social Services Agency. Because we are presented with an inadequate record, we affirm. FACTS Plaintiff has not presented us with her complaint. According to her briefing, she was not paid for work performed as an employee of a co- defendant, In-Home Supportive Services. Plaintiff has also not provided us with the moving and opposing papers on the motion to quash. The record contains a minute order explaining the court’s ruling: “Here, specially appearing defendants . . . have presented evidence demonstrating what was actually served for each was a summons directed only to [In-Home Supportive Services]. [Citations.] Although Plaintiff disputes this is so, the evidence presented does not show how each of the summons that were served were actually filled out. Based on what has been presented here, [defendants] have adequately shown defective 1 service.” DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends the court abused its discretion because a “motion to quash should only be granted where service is not compliant with statutory requirements, as outlined in American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383 [(Zara)].” Plaintiff also asserts that “two prior Judges who reviewed the case noted that there was nothing wrong with the proof[s] of service.”