2013-00155182-CU-OR

Joshua Johnston vs. Gabriela Aracelys Perez

Nature of Proceeding:   Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Filed By:  de la Rocha, Suzette Janine

Defendant Suzette Janine de la Rocha’s motion to quash summons and complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED, as follows.

Defendant is admonished because the notice of motion does not provide notice of the
Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06, and does not provide
the correct address for Dept. 54.  Defendant is directed to contact opposing counsel
and advise him/her of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and
the manner to request a hearing.  If defendant is unable to contact opposing
counsel prior to hearing, defendant is ordered to appear at the hearing in person
or by telephone.

Defendant is also admonished for failing to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

This is a quiet title action brought by the purchasers of residential real estate acquired
from Twin Lakes Securities, Inc., which itself had acquired the property at a
foreclosure sale of defendant Perez’s interest in the property.  Plaintiffs allege that
after they acquired and recorded their title to the property, defendant Perez recorded a
deed transferring the property to a trust.  Defendant de la Rocha’s is alleged to be the
trustee of Perez’s trust.

Defendant de la Rocha appears to argue that this Court has no subject matter
jurisdiction over this quiet title action.  Although the specific grounds for this contention
remains unclear, plaintiffs correctly point out in their opposition that a motion to quash
service of summons and complaint is not the proper vehicle by which to challenge the
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the motion to quash must be and
hereby is denied.

Additionally, to the extent the moving papers may be construed to suggest this Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant de la Rocha, it must be denied because the
moving papers fail to provide any facts or evidence which tend to show the absence of
personal jurisdiction.  It is also worth noting that defendant de la Rocha’s supporting
affidavit is not signed under penalty of perjury in conformity with Code of Civil
Procedure §2015.5 and it cannot be considered here.  Because Defendant de la            Rocha has failed to show the absence of personal jurisdiction or any other defect in
the service of the summons and complaint, the motion to quash for lack of personal
jurisdiction must also be denied.

This minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order or other notice is required.
(Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)