Case Number: TC029027 Hearing Date: March 22, 2018 Dept: A

# 13. Valentin Urgiles v. Olu K. Orange, et al.

Case No.: TC029027

Matter on calendar for: Hearing on unopposed motion to quash

Tentative ruling: Deny without prejudice

I. Proof of service, timing, and fees.

First, it is unclear whether Plaintiff was properly served with this motion. The proof of service represents service by mail on “Plaintiff in pro per” on March 2, 2018, but the Court file reflects that a stipulation substituting out Plaintiff’s former counsel (Nguyen) was effected only on March 13, 2018. Defendants must address this at the hearing. Second, the motion was not served 16 court days before the hearing as required by CCP § 1005(b). Third, the motion to quash was filed as to 6 defendants, but fees were paid only as to one party.

The Court denies this motion, without prejudice, on these grounds.

II. On the merits

If the Court reaches the merits, it would grant this motion.

Self-represented Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants, his former counsel, for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants move to quash service of summons and complaint pursuant to CCP § 418.10(a)(1) (“lack of jurisdiction”).

The Court denies Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice regarding Plaintiff’s former counsel’s apparent unrelated ethical issues. The evidence requested to be judicially noticed constitutes improper character evidence under Evidence Code § 1101. The Section 1101(c) exception regarding “the admissibility of evidence offered to support or attack the credibility of a witness” does not apply here because Khuong Nguyen is not a witness nor is his credibility at issue. (Plaintiff has failed to oppose this motion, let alone attach a declaration from Nguyen.) And Nguyen no longer represents Plaintiff.

Defendants otherwise demonstrate that Plaintiff has not properly served any Defendant. Proper service may be effected through (1) personal service to a defendant or authorized agent; (2) substitute service; (3) service by mail with acknowledgement of receipt; or (4) service by publication. Here, however:

· Plaintiff did not personally serve any Defendant. (See Stormer, White, and Orange Decls.)

· Plaintiff did not substitute serve any Defendant. He failed to (1) diligently attempt to personally serve Defendants or (2) sub-serve anyone authorized to receive service of process on behalf of any Defendant. (Id.)

· Plaintiff failed to follow the requirements to serve any Defendant by mail under CCP § 415.30. Plaintiff failed to send the mailing to an authorized agent for service of process, or include any notice and acknowledgement forms or return envelope. (See Thierfeldt v. Marin Hosp. Dist. (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 186, 199.)