Vincent Lara vs. Alexis Paige Lewis

34-2023-00336808-CU-FR-GDS: Vincent Lara vs. Alexis Paige Lewis 10/24/2023 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Cross-Defendants Vincent Lara and Joseph Lara’s (“Vincent and Joseph Lara”) motion to quash service of summons is ruled upon as follows. On March 23, 2023, Vincent and Joseph Lara sued Alexis Paige Lewis (“Lewis”) regarding changes made to the beneficiary listings for a Nationwide retirement account of their father. On May 2, 2023, Lewis sued Nationwide in Sacramento Superior Court Case Case No. 23CV000895 (the “Nationwide Action”), and later substituted Vincent and Joseph Lara in as additional defendants to that action.

On August 11, 2023, in the Nationwide Action, Vincent and Joseph Lara filed a motion to quash service of summons by Lewis. On September 29, 2023, the Court consolidated the two actions. In the motion to quash, Lewis argues that Vincent and Joseph Lara failed to comply with statutory requirements for effective service of summons on Lewis because the summons only lists Nationwide Insurance as a defendant, and Lewis failed to file or serve an amended summons naming Vincent and Joseph Lara. Lewis makes additional arguments about the propriety of Lewis’s substitutions of Vincent and Joseph Lara’s true names for Does, but these arguments are not relevant to the instant motion to quash service of summons.

While the Court agrees that no summons naming Vincent and Joseph Lara has been served on Vincent and Joseph Lara, this issue is now moot. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.60, a summons is needed if a party has not appeared in the action. Because Vincent and Joseph Lara are already parties to the now consolidated action, a summons as to Lewis’s complaint against them is not necessary. The Court need not address Lewis’s arguments in support of her Doe amendments. Vincent and Joseph Lara did not file a reply.

Vincent and Joseph Lara’s motion to quash service of summons is DENIED. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;

34-2023-00336808-CU-FR-GDS: Vincent Lara vs. Alexis Paige Lewis 10/24/2023 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 54

and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75.

Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956.

Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.