Case Number: 18CMUD02756 Hearing Date: February 14, 2019 Dept: A

# 6. Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC v. Ernest Reed, Jr.

Case No.: 18CMUD02756

Matter on calendar for: Motion to quash service

Tentative ruling:

I. Background

This is an unlawful detainer action. On December 4, 2018, plaintiff Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC, purchased the property known as 609 South Caswell Avenue, Compton, CA 90220 at a foreclosure sale. Breckenridge alleges it served defendant Ernest Reed, Jr., with a 3-day notice to quit on December 14, 2018. Reed has allegedly continued in possession of the property without Breckenridge’s consent.

Reed, in pro per, now moves to quash service of the summons and complaint. Breckenridge opposes. No reply has been filed as of February 11, 2019.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.

II. Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10 allows a defendant to move to quash the service of the summons and complaint for improper service. In evaluating a motion to quash, “the burden of proof is placed upon the plaintiff to establish the facts of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. This may be done through presentation of declarations, with opposing declarations received in response. Where there is a conflict in the declarations, resolution of the conflict by the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal if the determination of that court is supported by substantial evidence.” (CenterPoint Energy, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1118 (citation omitted).) “Substantial evidence is not synonymous with any evidence, but is rather evidence of ponderable legal significance, i.e., evidence which is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value. (Magnecomp Corp. v. Athene Co. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 526, 533 (citation omitted).)

III. Analysis

Breckenridge’s request for judicial notice is granted. The Court notices the January 18, 2019 order within the Court record.

Ernest Reed declares that he found the Summons and Complaint lying on his porch on January 1, 2019 and January 7, 2019. He further declares that he has not received a copy by certified mail. Breckenridge states that it subsequently obtained an order to post on January 18, 2019. The Court record reflects the order being granted on that date. Breckenridge also attaches the proof of service showing the service of the summons and complaint, with subsequent mailing, on January 23, 2019. (Mtn. Exh. 2.)

Breckenridge has met its burden of showing proper service. The motion to quash is denied.

IV. Ruling

The motion to quash is denied. Reed must file an answer in 5 days.