MEGAN BROGGER VS. NOCTURNAL CODE, UNKNOWN ENTITY ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC24613234 - December 23, 2025 Hearing date: December 23, 2025 Case number: CGC24613234 Case title: MEGAN BROGGER VS. NOCTURNAL CODE, UNKNOWN ENTITY ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24613234 | Case Title: | | MEGAN BROGGER VS. NOCTURNAL CODE, UNKNOWN ENTITY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-23 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS | Rulings: | | Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Tuesday, December 23, 2025, Line 5.

DEFENDANT LISA ROSE MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS Specially Appearing Cross-Defendant Lisa Rose's motion to quash Cross-Complainant Tatiana Takaeva Shiff's service of summons is DENIED. Rose's motion to dismiss is DENIED.

Motion to Quash Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subdivision (a), a defendant "may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. (2) To stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. (3) To dismiss the action pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 583.110) of Title 8." In other words, Defendants are allowed to bring a motion to quash and a motion to dismiss in the same motion when the motion to dismiss is on the grounds of inconvenient forum or dismissal for delay in prosecution. (CCP 418.10, subd. (a).)

Here, Cross-Defendant Rose brought a motion to quash service of summons and a motion to dismiss cross-complaint with prejudice due to the running of the statute of limitations. These motions are improperly combined and thus will be separately considered.

Cross-Defendant Rose argues that under Code of Civil Procedure section 428.60, Cross-Complainant should have included the original complaint in her service, not just the cross complaint and summons. Section 428.60 states, in part: "A cross-complaint shall be served on each of the parties in an action in the following manner: (1) If a party has not appeared in the action, a summons upon the cross-complaint shall be issued and served upon him in the same manner as upon commencement of an original action." California Civil Rules, Rule 3.222 requires: "A cross-complainant must serve a copy of the complaint or, if it has been amended, the most recently amended complaint and any answers thereto on cross-defendants who have not previously appeared."

Here, both parties agree that Cross-Complainant failed to serve a copy of the complaint and any answers to the complaint. However, if there is substantial compliance with service statutory provisions, the court should liberally construe those statutory provisions if actual notice has been received by the defendant. (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1436-1437.) Cross-Complainant substantially complied with the statute by serving the cross-complaint and the summons, which referenced the complaint. Moreover, Cross-Defendant was on actual notice of the contents of the complaint because Plaintiff personally served her with the complaint on June 25, 2025. (See, proof of service of summons and complaint) Cross-Defendant's motion to quash is denied.

Motion to Dismiss Substantive defenses such as the statute of limitations may not be raised by a party who has not yet appeared in the action. Because the court currently lacks jurisdiction to consider Cross-Complaint's argument regarding the statute of limitations, the motion to dismiss is denied. (Tentative Ruling is continued on the next page.)(Page 1 of 2.) | |