Claim of Zavala and Medina

“(a) A copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place of the hearing thereof and any other papers upon which the petition is based shall be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice.

“(b) If the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made and the person upon whom service is to be made has not previously appeared in the proceeding and has not previously been served in accordance with this subdivision:

“(1) Service within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.

“(2) Service outside this State shall be made by mailing the copy of the petition and notice and other papers by registered or certified mail. Personal service is the equivalent of such service by mail. Proof of service by mail shall be made by affidavit showing such mailing together with the return receipt of the United States Post Office bearing the signature of the person on whom service was made. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, if service is made in the manner provided in this paragraph, the petition may not be heard until at least 30 days after the date of such service.”

The attached proof of service is for eservice on a law firm. That is not sufficient without an agreement to accept service on behalf of Respondent in this manner. Although the letter from the law firm may be sufficient to allow service of other documents by eservice, it is not sufficient to comply with section 1290.4 and confer jurisdiction with this court.

Based on the foregoing, the petition is CONTINUED as stated above for Petitioners to address the foregoing issues. Any supplemental filing must be filed and served within the time and in the manner required for the initial filing and service. Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

15. Claim of Zavala and Medina 2025-01532561 Before the court is the continued hearing on the motion of petitioner People of the State of California (Petitioner) for default and default judgment of forfeiture. As more fully set forth below, the motion is CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., IN DEPARTMENT C23, for adequate service.

Petitioner brings this motion under Health and Safety Code section 11488.5 on the ground no one has filed a timely and proper claim to the $75,953.87 in United States Currency Petitioner seized on or about January 9, 2025. Health and Safety Code section 11488.5, subdivision (a), grants any claimant to the property subject to forfeiture 30 days from the last publication of notice of the forfeiture proceedings or 30 days after receipt of actual notice to file a verified claim for the property.

Section 11488.5, subdivision (b)(1), provides, “If at the end of the time set forth in subdivision (a) there is no claim on file, the court, upon motion, shall declare the property seized or subject to forfeiture pursuant to subdivisions (a) to (g), inclusive, of Section 11470 forfeited to the state. In moving for a default judgment pursuant to this subdivision, the state or local governmental entity shall be required to establish a prima facie case in support of its petition for forfeiture. There is no requirement for forfeiture thereof that a criminal conviction be obtained in an underlying or related criminal offense.”

“Health and Safety Code section 11488.4 provides for three types of notice of forfeiture proceedings. [Citation.] First, a person from whom property is seized and who is named in a receipt for the seized property is entitled to service of process of the petition of forfeiture. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11488.4, subd. (c).) Second, notice of the seizure or of an intended forfeiture proceeding along with instructions for filing a claim is ‘to be served by personal delivery or by registered mail upon any person who has an interest in the seized property or property subject to forfeiture other than persons designated in a receipt issued for the property seized.’ (Id., § 11488.4, subd. (c).)

Finally, notice of a forfeiture action must be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county of seizure. (Id., § 11488.4, subd. (e).)” (People v. Mendocino County Assessor’s Parcel No. 056 500-09 (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 120, 125.)

Here, the two “Receipt for Seizure and Personal Notice of Intended Forfeiture” submitted identify real parties in interest Pedro Nicolas Zavala (Zavala) and Brenda Gonzalez Medina (Medina). Zavala and Medina were served with the receipts on January 9 and January 16, 2025. Accordingly, Health and Safety Code section 11488.4, subdivision (c), required Zavala and Medina to be served with process of the petition initiating these proceedings. That generally requires personal service, but there are alternative means available upon a sufficient showing.

The court first heard this motion on May 14, 2026. At that time, the court continued the hearing to the current date because Petitioner had not properly served Zavala and Medina. Petitioner had made a number of efforts, but were unable to personally serve them, and mailing copies of the papers to them within California and without an executed notice and acknowledgement of receipt was not adequate as the court explained. Accordingly, the court continued the hearing to provide Petitioner with additional time to serve Zavala and Medina.

Petitioner has not submitted supplemental declarations that again acknowledge Petitioner still has been unable to personally serve either Zavala or Medina with the petition initiating these proceedings. Petitioner therefore sent copies of the petition to Zavala and Medina by certified mail at their last known address. Unfortunately, although service by certified mail is an authorized method for service of process on a defendant located in another state if the defendant signs and returns a return receipt (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 415.40, 417.20), that is not an acceptable means of service within the State of California. Service by mail within the state requires the party being served to execute a notice and acknowledgment of service. No such acknowledgement is presented in this case. Additionally, neither of the return mail receipts are signed by either Zavala or Medina.

When investigators attempted to personally serve Zavala at the last known address, they were told Zavala no longer lives at the address to which the notice was mailed. The supplemental declaration still admits neither Zavala nor Medina has been served a copy of the Petition. As a result, neither Zavala nor Medina have been properly served in these proceedings and therefore the court cannot grant this motion at this time. The hearsay statements allegedly waiving any claim to the funds at issue is not sufficient.

There are alternative means Petitioner can try, such as service by publication, and as the start of this year, electronic service. Both of those means require court approval which can be issued only upon making a rather substantial showing. The generalized publication the Petitioner already made is not sufficient to meet the requirements for service of process on Zavala and Medina.

Based on the foregoing, the petition is CONTINUED as set forth above for proper service on Zavala and Medina. Petitioner is ordered to file a proper proof of service at least five court days before the continued hearing date. Petitioner’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

16. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan vs. Sharp Memorial Hospital 2026-01566981 Before the court are the following two motions to seal filed by petitioner Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (Petitioner): (1) motion to seal portions of Kaiser’s petition to confirm arbitration award, and (2) motion to seal Kaiser’s opposition to the motion of respondents Sharp Memorial Hospital, Sharp Coronado Hospital & Healthcare Center, Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center, and Grossmont Hospital Corporation dba Sharp Grossmont Hospital (collectively, Sharp) to vacate the arbitration award. As more fully set forth below, these motions are CONTINUED TO AUGUST 13, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., IN DEPARTMENT C23, for proof of service and potential narrowing of the scope of matters to be redacted.

As an initial issue, the court notes it is unable to locate any proof of service filed with the court to establish either of these motions were served on Sharp, and the court has not received any opposition demonstrating receipt of these motions and waiver of any service defect. The court understands Sharp may not oppose these motions, but the court may not assume that, and that potential does not eliminate the need for proof of proper service. Moreover, although Sharp may not oppose the motions, it may contend broader redaction is appropriate. Any proof of service was required to be filed at least five court days before the hearing. This shortcoming alone mandates a continuance.

Motion No. 1 (Seal Petition to Confirm) By this motion, Kaiser seeks to seal portions of the arbitration award attached to its petition to confirm the arbitration award. Kaiser does not seek to seal any portions of the petition itself; just certain portions of the arbitration award. “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules Ct. rule 2.550(c).) “A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 2.551(a).) “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or