Motion for Alternate Service of Summons
As the above declaration is undisputed and, as Plaintiff has not submitted conflicting expert evidence, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim for medical malpractice. (Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 985; See also Willard v. Hagemeister (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 406, 412; and Jambazian v. Borden (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 836, 844.)
11. 2023-1355588 Plaintiff Aziz Damak’s Motion for Alternate Service of Summons Damak vs. For Last Remaining Defendant is denied. Patel Plaintiff moves, under CCP sections 413.30 and 415.50, for an order “authorizing alternate service” on Defendant Anthony Burton. When serving an individual within this state, the Code provides five different methods of service: (1) personal service (§ 415.10); (2) substitute service (§ 415.20); (3) acknowledgement of receipt of summons by regular mail with return acknowledgment of receipt (§ 415.30); (4) and, service by publication (§ 415.50).
Generally, “in order to obtain in personam jurisdiction through any form of constructive service there must be strict compliance with the requisite statutory procedures.” (Zirbes v. Stratton (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1407, 1417.) “Actual notice” is not sufficient to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant where the method of service is “totally outside the statutory prescriptions.” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 415 [rejecting argument that, if “somehow [service] resulted in actual notice to the defendant in time to defend the action, then any defects in the manner of service should be overlooked”]; see also American Express Centurion Bank v.
Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 392 [“Actual notice of the action alone, however, is not a substitute for proper service and is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction”].)
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?”
Here, Plaintiff has not shown relief under CCP section 413.30 is available. The statute provides, in relevant part, that:
If no provision is made in this chapter or other law for the service of summons, or if a plaintiff, despite exercising reasonable diligence, has been unable to effect service of the summons by any of the methods authorized under this chapter, the court in which the action is pending may, upon motion, direct that summons be served in a manner that is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to be served, including by electronic mail or other electronic technology, and that proof of such service be made as prescribed by the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 413.30, subd. (a)(1), emphasis added.)
To establish “reasonable diligence,” the plaintiff must “set forth facts detailing all attempts to serve the defendant by each of the methods prescribed by statute, including facts demonstrating why
each method was unsuccessful at every address or location where the defendant is likely to be found.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 413.30, subd. (a)(2).)
Plaintiff, here, has arguably demonstrated that he has been reasonably diligent in attempting personal or substitute service on Defendant Burton, and that he has been unable to do so. However, Plaintiff’s motion fails to address any attempt at service by acknowledgement of receipt of summons with return acknowledgment of receipt (§ 415.30).
By this motion, Plaintiff appears to be making an alternate request for service by publication. The Court notes that publication is likely not available, as Plaintiff admits he has an address for Defendant Burton. (Watts v. Crawford (1995) 10 Cal.4th 743, 749, fn. 5 [publication not appropriate where the “defendant’s address is ascertainable”].) Further, the motion fails to include any facts from which the court could conclude Plaintiff has a cause of action against Burton. (Rios v. Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 871, 884.)
For the foregoing reasons, the motion is denied.
13. 2025-1475343 Demurrer to First Amended Complaint Grady vs. Nguyen The Court overrules Defendants AD&TK Investments, Inc. dba Triumph Mortgage Solutions and Triumph Real Estate Solutions, and Duy Hoang Pham’s (the Broker Defendants) Demurrer to Plaintiff Thomas Grady First Amended Complaint (FAC).
Defendants are ordered to answer the FAC within 15 days.
As an initial matter, the reply documents are filed with only three court-days’ notice on May 8, 2026. Reply papers must be served and filed at least five court days before the hearing date. (CCP § 1005(b).) Papers submitted after the deadline must be accepted for filing. But the court, in its discretion, may refuse to consider these papers in ruling on the motion. (CRC 3.1300(d); Jack v. Ring LLC (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1186, 1210.) Here, no explanation is offered for the late filing and service of the reply in support of the Motion to strike. In addition, no proof of service is provided at all for the reply in support of the Demurrer. Thus, the Court in its discretion does not consider the reply document.
Merits Here, Plaintiff sues the Broker Defendants for engaging in a conspiracy with his former fiancé Kathy Nguyen, working at the