Case Name: Montes v. Ramos, et al.
Case No.: 1-13-CV-248046

Defendants Jorge Ramos and Jaime Peralta (collectively, “Defendants”) move to quash service of the Summons and Complaint. Defendants argue that they were not properly served. Where a “defendant claims that he has not been served or that the service is legally insufficient, he may seek relief by making a special appearance and moving the court for an order quashing the service and setting aside the default entry.” (Riskin v. Towers (1944) 24 Cal. 2d 274, 277.) “[O]nce a defendant files a motion to quash the burden is on the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the validity of the service and the court’s jurisdiction over the defendant.” (Boliah v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 984, 991.)

Plaintiff Gloria Montes (“Plaintiff”) has not submitted a substantive opposition, but rather her attorney states that he did not receive any motion to quash from Defendants. Defendants filed proofs of service showing that Plaintiff was served. Therefore, the merits of the motions to quash will be considered by the Court.

Although Plaintiff has not submitted a substantive opposition, Plaintiff does state that there are proofs of service on file with the Court. Plaintiff is correct. A proof of service filed on February 25, 2014, shows that Jorge Ramos was served on February 22, 2014, by substituted service. A separate proof of service filed on February 22, 2014, also shows that Jaime Peralta was served on February 22, 2014, by substituted service.

Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b) states:

If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, as specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.

The Court’s file contains two Declarations of Due Diligence, both filed on February 25, 2014. The declarations state that personal service was attempted three times on each defendant before substituted service was used. Generally, two or three attempts at personal service at a proper place are sufficient to satisfy the requirement of reasonable diligence and allow substituted service to be made. (See Espindola v. Nunez (1988) 199 Cal. App. 3d 1389, 1392.) Consequently, proper service has been shown.

Defendants argue that they were not personally served and that copies of the Summons and Complaint were not mailed to them as required for substituted service. Defendants have not filed any declarations supporting these assertions or otherwise demonstrated that they were not properly served. Accordingly, Defendants’ motions to quash are DENIED.