Motion to Dismiss or Stay for Forum Non Conveniens
Additionally, as no prejudice is apparent, leave to file is GRANTED.
Defendant shall separately file the proposed Cross Complaint, attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Erika Sandler, within 5 days of this order.
Defendant to give notice.
7 Chaganti vs. Red Motion to Dismiss or Stay for Forum Non Conveniens Tail Residential LLC The court DENIES without prejudice specially appearing Defendants RED TAIL RESIDENTIAL, LLC and LINDSY HARVEY’s motion to dismiss or stay action for forum non conveniens.
On 5/15/26, the court posted a tentative ruling, which described the reasons why Defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing that a mandatory forum selection clause was enforceable between the parties and why the public and private factors are neutral under a traditional discretionary forum non conveniens analysis. Defendants requested an opportunity to provide supplemental briefing to cure any defects raised in the tentative ruling, which the court granted.
In Defendants’ supplemental brief, Defendants offer two declarations, one by Lindsy Harvey and one by Lori Jones, which attempt to authenticate a lease agreement. Both declarations end with “I declare under the penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.” (See ROA 96 at 2:12 & ROA 97 at 2:16). Plaintiff objects to these declarations on the grounds that it does not comply with California law. Plaintiff is correct.
The declarations are not made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California. (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) “[Code of Civil Procedure] Section 2015.5 seeks to enhance the reliability of all declarations used as hearsay evidence by disclosing the sanction for dishonesty. Thus, the statute requires some acknowledgement on the face of the declaration that perjured statements might
trigger prosecution under California law.” (Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 601, 606.) Section 2015.5 requires a declaration to recite “that it is certified or declared by [the affiant] to be true under penalty of perjury, is subscribed by him or her, and (1), if executed within this state, states the date and place of execution, or (2), if executed at any place, within or without this state, states the date of execution and that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the State of California.”
The declarations are therefore inadmissible to authenticate the lease agreement containing the mandatory forum selection clause.
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?”
Defendants attempt to remedy this error by offering supplemental declarations in Defendants’ supplemental reply and asks the court to consider this new evidence. The court previously gave Defendants an additional opportunity to authenticate the lease agreement by continuing the hearing and allowing Defendants to file supplemental declarations. Defendants again failed to meet their burden, and only after Plaintiff objected to the inadmissibility (again) of the lease agreement, Defendants attempt to offer the newly, corrected declarations. “The general rule of motion practice, which applies here, is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.” (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537). “The general rule of motion practice, which applies here, is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.” (Id. at 1537.)
Here, Plaintiff’s opposition meritoriously objected to Defendant’s evidence. The court will not consider the new declarations submitted with the reply brief.
In summary, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants failed again to establish by admissible evidence that a mandatory forum selection clause applies between the parties.
Further, the supplemental declarations of Lindsy Harvey and Lori Jones do not offer any substantial new evidence to change the court’s analysis on the traditional discretionary
forum non conveniens analysis, as set forth in the court’s tentative ruling, which was posted on 5/15/26.
The court incorporates by reference the 5/15/26 tentative ruling to this ruling.
Moving Defendants to give notice.
The court will also note that neither Defendants have been served with the second amended complaint and this case is therefore still not at issue.
8 Smythe Volvo Motion to Quash Service of Summons Veloce vs. Hernandez The court DENIES Defendant MAURICIO QUINTANILLA HERNANDEZ’s motion to quash service of summons.
Evidentiary Objection: The court SUSTAINS Plaintiff SMYTH VOLVO VELOCE’s objection to the exhibits attached to Defendant’s notice of lodging.
On 4/3/26, Plaintiff filed a proof of service of summons, which states that Defendant was personally served on 2/27/26 at 6:07 p.m. by Liana Borisov, a registered California process server. (ROA 69.) Defendant Hernandez challenges the service, arguing that Hernandez was not actually personally served. Instead, Hernandez argues that Plaintiff’s process server actually served a security guard and not Hernandez.
Improper or invalid service is properly challenged by a motion to quash. (Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 830, 855, fn. 4; Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a)(1).)
When a defendant moves to quash service, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. (School Dist. of Okaloosa County v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1131.) However, this burden shifts when a properly executed proof of service has been filed. Filing a proof of service that
12