2013-00151456-CL-OE

Balwinder Patrola vs. Asif Mahmood (President) Sitoa

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Filed By: Ullrich, Gabriel

Specially Appearing Defendants Asif Mehmood (“Mehmood”) and Hadi Kakkar’s
(“Kakkar”) (collectively “Defendants”) motion to quash service of summons is ruled
upon as follows.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted. In taking judicial notice of these
documents, the court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents.
th
(See Professional Engineers v. Dep’t of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4 543, 590 [judicial
notice of findings of fact does not mean that those findings of fact are true]; Steed v.
Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121.)

This is Defendants’ second motion to quash. On January 30, 2014, the Court granted
Defendants’ unopposed motion to quash, quashing the service of summons and
complaint purportedly served on October 16, 2013.

Defendants now move to quash the summons/complaint purportedly served on
February 14, 2014.

As to Asif Mehmood, the motion is GRANTED. In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff
states that he did not retain a copy of the proof of service of summons, but states that
service took place on February 14, 2014. Because Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that
the summons/complaint was served on Asif Mehmood, the motion is GRANTED.
As to Hadi Kakkar, the motion is DENIED. While the Court notes that it does not have
a copy of the proof of service for Hadi Kakkar in its files, Plaintiff included a copy with
his opposition. The proof of service indicates that Hadi Kakkar was served via
substitute service on February 14, 2014, at the Taxi Cab Dispatch Trailer at 6900
Airport Blvd, Sacramento, Ca 95837-1109. The summons/complaint was also mailed
to the same address. The Court disagrees with Hadi Kakkar’s argument in reply that
the Declaration of Diligence is unsigned. Here, paragraph 5(5) of the proof of service
states that the process server “attach[es] a ‘Declaration of Diligence’, incorporated
herein by reference, stating actions taken first to attempt personal service.” Paragraph
8 below is a declaration under penalty of perjury with the signature of the process
server. Moreover, Hadi Kakkar did not proffer a declaration indicating that the sub-
service was improper.

Plaintiff is directed to file a copy of the proof of service for Hadi Kakkar.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.