2018-00229212-CU-FR

Charles Somers vs. Dr. James Longoria

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint

Filed By: Dudensing, Janice D.

Defendant James Longoria, M.D.’s (Dr. Longoria) motion to quash service of summons is DENIED.

Dr. Longoria admits that, while he was driving away from his residence early on the morning on 4/06/18, a man ran toward his car and dropped something. (Longoria Decl., ¶¶ 6-8.) Dr. Longoria picked up the something–a summons and complaint–and placed it in his car. (Id., ¶¶ 9-11.) Although the documents were wet from rain when he picked them up, Dr. Longoria does not contend he was unable to understand their import once he reviewed them later that day. Nonetheless, Dr. Longoria argues that, because the person who dropped the documents did not place them in his hands, personal service was not effected.

For his part, Plaintiff Charles Somers (Somers) argues Dr. Longoria has been evading service in this matter and was personally served on 4/06/18. (See Gilbert Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) Somers also asserts that Dr. Longoria’s counsel sought and received an extension of time to prepare a demurrer, and that Dr. Longoria propounded discovery in this case. (See Amaral Decl., ¶¶ 6-10 and Exhs. B, C.)

Somers argues he effected personal service upon Dr. Longoria, and the court agrees. Dr. Longoria refused Somers’ process server’s attempt at personal service at his home on 4/05/18. When Dr. Longoria was pulling out of his driveway early the following morning, the process server approached Dr. Longoria’s vehicle, called out Dr. Longoria’s name and stated that he was being served with court papers. Dr. Longoria refused to roll his window down and accept the papers. At that point, the process server dropped the papers on the front hood of Dr. Longoria’s car. For reasons set forth in the authorities cited in Somers’ opposition, Dr. Longoria was personally served. (See Opp. at 8-9.)

To the extent Dr. Longoria’s account of what occurred between himself and the process server conflicts with the account above, Dr. Longoria’s account lacks credibility, and the court disregards it.

The motion to quash is denied.