American Express National Bank vs. Turcotte

Specifically, Moving Party has failed to show why appointment of a receiver is necessary to prevent diversion of rental income generated by the subject property during the pendency of this action. A preliminary injunction restraining Defendant from diverting, concealing or otherwise disposing of rental income generated from the subject property is sufficient to protect Plaintiff’s interests without involving an unnecessarily costly process of appointing and overseeing a receiver. Furthermore, such an injunction would not cause substantial prejudice to Defendant. Moreover, Defendant’s interests can be protected by requiring Plaintiff to post an undertaking. (See Code Civ. Proc. §529.) Plaintiff has proposed an undertaking in the amount of $10,000. The Court considers this to be sufficient and an appropriate amount.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for appointment of a receiver without prejudice, but GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for entry of a preliminary injunction. Within 30 days, Plaintiff shall lodge a proposed preliminary injunction for the Court’s signature. The proposed preliminary injunction shall restrain Defendant from diverting, concealing, or otherwise disposing of any rental income obtained from the subject property without Plaintiff’s prior written consent and shall require Plaintiff to post an undertaking of $10,000 prior to the injunction taking effect.

Moving Party to provide notice. .

2. American Express National Bank vs. Turcotte

25-01530865

1. Motion to Quash Service of Summons 2. Case Management Conference

Defendant Stephen Turcotte’s Motion to Quash Service of the Summons is DENIED.

A motion to Quash Service of Summons is governed by Code Civ. Proc. §418.10. A motion to Quash is available where the plaintiff has not achieved valid service of summons on a defendant because until valid service of a valid summons has been made, the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant. (See Code Civ. Proc. §418.10, subd. (a)(1); see also Kremerman v. White (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 358, 371.) That a defendant has actual knowledge of the complaint does not cure defects in service of summons. (See Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1457, 1466.)

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; American Exp. Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390.)

Here, the proof of service of the summons and complaint filed by Plaintiff indicates it was served on March 16, 2026, on a “Female” with brown eyes “5’4”-5’7” tall” weighing 111-130 lbs. Defendant avers he is a male with blue eyes, 5’9” tall and approximately 160 lbs. At the time of service he was located at 1 Moonshell, Newport Coast, CA 92657, and not at the service address of 25132 Woolwich St., Laguna Hills, CA 92653.

Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, however, it has filed an amended proof of service of summons with an amended declaration of diligence stating that the summons and complaint was served by substituted service on a member of the household who would not provide her name. She was a female with brown eyes “5’4”-5’7” tall” weighing 111-130 lbs.

The summons and complaint was thereafter mailed to the address where the copies of the summons and complaint were left.

The filing of the amended proof of service of summons creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper. Defendant has not filed a reply disputing the amended proof of service. Thus, service is presumed to be proper.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

The Case Management Conference is continued to November 12, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department C12.

Clerk to give notice

3. Ruskey vs. Salman

24-01416981 1. Demurrer to Amended Complaint 2. Case Management Conference

NTS filed August 6, 2026. ROA 162

OSC re: Dismissal of Settled Case set for December 3, 2026. ROA 165