• Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 666,938 hits
  • Categories

Opposition to motion to quash service of summons in California

An opposition to a motion to quash service of summons in California is the topic of this blog post. Any opposition should be served and filed at least nine (9) Court days before the hearing and served by personal service or express mail or another service providing for overnight delivery. See Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

Anyone served with a motion to quash in California should carefully review the motion and supporting documents to determine if the motion complies with California law.

The first determination should be whether the notice of motion designates a hearing date not more than 30 days after filing of the notice as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10(b) which states “The notice shall designate, as the time for making the motion, a date not more than 30 days after filing of the notice”. If the hearing date is more than 30 days after the filing of the notice then the motion violates the right of Plaintiff to a timely hearing and a good argument can be made that the motion is dilatory and clearly filed in bad faith as a delaying tactic.

And the supporting declarations should be carefully scrutinized as many Defendants file motions to quash and include only vague and conclusory allegations in the supporting declarations.

Other factors to consider are whether the moving party has ever contacted the Plaintiff and acknowledged receipt of the summons and complaint, entered into settlement negotiations, made offers to settle the case, or requested extensions of time to answer the complaint. If any of these factors are present the motion to quash can be opposed on the grounds that Defendant received actual notice of the lawsuit. The law in California is settled that the statutes relating to service of process are to be liberally construed in favor of proper service and the upholding of jurisdiction if actual notice has been received by the Defendant.

If the summons and complaint were served by a Registered Process Server that fact creates a presumption that service was proper under Evidence Code § 647 which states that, “The return of a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.”

“Filing a proof of service that complies with statutory standards creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper.” Dill v Berquist Construction Co., Inc (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1441-1442.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a 12 page sample opposition to a motion to quash service of summons which includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service sold by the author can see below.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.

You can view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation at View over 300 sample legal documents for sale

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.”

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

Advertisements

What is your opinion?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: