Case Number: PC053798    Hearing Date: July 28, 2014    Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

ANA MARIA JAROLIM,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

BENHUR MELENDEZ ORTEGA, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: PC053798

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #18
July 28, 2014

Defendant, Piper Case Management Inc.’s Motion to Quash is Denied.
Plaintiff Ana Jarolim’s request for sanctions is Denied.

Plaintiff Ana Jarolim filed this action against Defendant Benhur Ortega, et al., for damages arising out of an auto accident.
This action was filed on 10/1/12. Plaintiff filed a “Doe Amendment” substituting Piper Case Management Inc as to “Doe 1” on 8/29/13. Defendant argues that service of the summons herein was improper and thus personal jurisdiction over Defendant was never obtained. However, Plaintiff provides that Defendant made a general appearance herein by serving discovery requests upon Plaintiff. Defendant’s reply disputes that they made a general appearance and re-asserts that service herein is invalid.
“A general appearance occurs where a party, either directly or through counsel, participates in an action in some manner which recognizes the authority of the court to proceed. It does not require any formal or technical act.” Mansour v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 38 Cal.App. 4th 1750, 1756-57 (“responses on the case management statement and their active participation in the evaluation conference constitute a general appearance in the case.”). Accord Renoir v. Redstar Corp. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1153. A general appearance may be made in a variety of ways, and need not have been in conformance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1014. Dial 800 v. Fesbinder (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 32, 52; Hickey v. Algie (1921) 51 Cal.App.595, 597-98. “‘A general appearance by a party is equivalent to personal service of summons on such party.’” Renoir v. Redstar Corp. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1149-50. Propounding discovery without challenging the court’s jurisdiction constitutes a general appearance. Factor Health Mgmt, LLC v. Sup.Ct. (Apex Therapeutic Care, Inc.) (2005) 132 Cal App 4th 246, 250; Creed v. Schultz (1983) 148 Cal App 3d 733, 739–740.
Prior to filing the instant motion on 4/18/14, Plaintiff provides that Defendant served special interrogatories and document demands upon her on 9/27/13. Because Defendant served discovery requests herein, Defendant has made a general appearance prior to disputing the court’s jurisdiction. As such, the motion is without merit
In Plaintiff’s Opposition, she requests sanctions of $2,179 against Defendant and Counsel. However, this request represents new matter that is required to be filed and served as a separately noticed motion. Because the request is within the opposition herein, the request fails to provide sufficient notice to Defendant per CCP §1005. Where a moving party failed to provide sufficient notice of a hearing in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005, the resultant order is void, absent an order shortening time. Svistunoff v. Svistunoff (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 638, 641. Because any ruling on the request for sanctions herein would be void, the request is denied.
Defendant’s motion is denied and Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Dated this 28th day of July, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court