Motion to Quash Service of Summons
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
complies with the applicable statutory standards creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper. (Floveyor Int’l, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795
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’s proof of service, signed by a registered process service is sufficient to create a presumption that service of process. (Floveyor Int’l, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795; Cal. Evid. Code § 647).
The burden shifts to Defendant to provide sufficient contradictory evidence to rebut the presumption. The court finds that Defendant has failed to do so.
Defendant contends there is a surveillance video but failed to serve the surveillance video to Plaintiff. Further, no person purports to authenticate the surveillance video. Finally, the person who purports to authenticate a still of the surveillance video is Tamar Arminak, Defendant’s attorney. Arminak however fails to provide sufficient foundation to establish that Arminak has sufficient personal knowledge to authenticate the still.
Defendant provides a declaration of Armando Arzata, the security guard. Defendant himself fails to offer a declaration to refute that he was personally served. In Plaintiff’s opposition, Plaintiff offers a declaration of Liana Borisov, the registered process server. Borisov declares that upon serving, she “asked the man if he was MAURICIO QUINTANILLA HERNANDEZ and he said, “Yes, that’s me.” I then gave the Case Initiating Documents and then complimented the Property,” which is consistent with the proof of service filed. (Borisov Decl., ¶ 6.)
The California Supreme Court has adopted a “liberal construction” of California statutes governing service of process. (Pasadena Medi–Center Associates v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 773, 778; Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 410.) So long as the defendant receives actual notice of the lawsuit, substantial compliance with the California statutes governing service of summons generally will be held sufficient. (Pasadena Medi–Center, 9 Cal.3d at 778; Gibble v. Car–Lene Research,
Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 295, 313; Dill v. Barquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1436-1437.)
The court finds that Defendant has not met his burden of rebutting the presumption of proper service. As such, the motion is DENIED.
Defendant SHALL respond to the Complaint within 20 days.
Plaintiff to give notice.
11 Doe vs. Anaheim Demurrer Elementary School Motion to Strike District
1. Demurrer
The court SUSTAINS, with 5 days leave to amend, the unopposed demurrer by Defendant ANAHEIM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, regarding the third cause of action of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff JANE JI DOE, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, SHARLENE SANCHEZ.
The demurrer appears to be meritorious. Plaintiff’s third cause of action asserts Defendant failed to “properly warn, train, and/or educate their administrators, credentialed staff, and classified staff.” (Compl., ¶ 88.) As noted by Defendant, “a direct claim against a governmental entity asserting negligent hiring and supervision, when not grounded in the breach of a statutorily imposed duty owed by the entity to the injured party, may not be maintained.” (de Villers v. County of San Diego (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 238, 255-256.)
Similarly, while the third cause of action alleges a failure to properly warn, train, and educate students as to bullying (Compl., ¶¶ 85-87), schools do not have an actionable duty of care “in the discharge of their academic functions.” (Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified School District (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 814, 825.)
14