This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/05/2020 at 13:01:21 (UTC).

BASTA, INC. VS IRENE ZENDANO

Case Summary

On 01/10/2020 BASTA, INC filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against IRENE ZENDANO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0307

  • Filing Date:

    01/10/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Petitioner

BASTA INC.

Respondent

ZENDANO IRENE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

RAMM BENJAMIN GREGORY

Respondent Attorney

ZASLAVSKY NEAL

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons) of 11/03/2020

11/3/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons) of 11/03/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

11/3/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

9/1/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

9/1/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

9/1/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

6/16/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/16/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Motion to Quash Service of Summons - Motion to Quash Service of Summons

3/3/2020: Motion to Quash Service of Summons - Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

3/3/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

1/24/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Complaint - Complaint

1/10/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

1/10/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/10/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

1/10/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

1/10/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

3 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/13/2023
  • Hearing01/13/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2021
  • Hearing07/09/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons) of 11/03/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 11/03/2020 at 09:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 11/03/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Irene Zendano (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Irene Zendano (Respondent); As to: BASTA, INC. (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 09/01/2020 at 09:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 11/03/2020 09:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
5 More Docket Entries
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 05/12/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: BASTA, INC. (Petitioner); As to: Irene Zendano (Respondent); Proof of Mailing Date: 01/23/2020; Service Cost: 75.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/13/2023 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/09/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: BASTA, INC. (Petitioner); As to: Irene Zendano (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: BASTA, INC. (Petitioner); As to: Irene Zendano (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: BASTA, INC. (Petitioner); As to: Irene Zendano (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC00307    Hearing Date: November 03, 2020    Dept: 26

Basta, Inc. v. Zendano, et al.

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

(CCP § 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Irene Zendano’s Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On January 10, 2020, Plaintiff Basta, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for “wrongful use of civil proceedings” against Defendant Irene Zendano (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed proof of substitute service of the Summons and Complaint on January 24, 2020. On March 3, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

The Motion initially came for hearing on September 1, 2020 at which time the Court found Defendant has not demonstrated proper service of the Motion and Notice of Hearing on Plaintiff. (Minute Order, 9/1/20.) Specifically, the Motion and Notice of Hearing were served to Benjamin Ramm, Esq. at 8605 Santa Monica Blvd, #93082, West Hollywood, California. (Proof of Service by Mail, filed 3/3/20, ¶5.) Plaintiff’s counsel’s address of record, however, is 9450 SW Gemini Dr. #93082, Beaverton, Oregon. (Complaint, p. 1.) In fact, following continuance of the Motion hearing date, the Court gave notice of the new hearing dates to defense counsel at the Gemini Drive address. (Notices Re Continuance of Hearing and Order, filed 4/16/20 and 6/16/20.) The Court continued the hearing to give Defendant an opportunity to demonstrate proper service of Motion and Notice of Hearing. (Minute Order, 9/1/20.) To date, there is still no correct proof of service of the motion to quash filed as ordered. The Court warned Defendant that failure to demonstrate proper service of the Motion and Notice of Hearing might result in the Motion being denied or placed off calendar. (Ibid.)

Therefore, Defendant Irene Zendano’s Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC00307    Hearing Date: September 01, 2020    Dept: 26

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Irene Zendano’s Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 3, 2020 AT 9:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

On January 10, 2020, Plaintiff Basta, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for “wrongful use of civil proceedings” against Defendant Irene Zendano (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed proof of substitute service of the Summons and Complaint on January 24, 2020. On March 3, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Service of Motion and Notice of Hearing

Defendant has not demosntrated proper service of the Motion and Notice of Hearing on Plaintiff. The Motion and Notice of Hearing were served to Benjamin Ramm, Esq. at 8605 Santa Monica Blvd, #93082, West Hollywood, California. (Proof of Service by Mail, filed 3/3/20, ¶5.) Plaintiff’s counsel’s address of record, however, is 9450 SW Gemini Dr. #93082, Beaverton, Oregon. (Complaint, p. 1.) In fact, following continuance of the Motion hearing date, the Court gave notice of the new hearing dates to defense counsel at the Gemini Drive address. (Notices Re Continuance of Hearing and Order, filed 4/16/20 and 6/16/20.)

Until Defendant demonstrates service of the Motion and Notice of Hearing to the correct address, the Court cannot grant the relief requested. The fact that no opposition has been filed may be due to improper service.

That being said, the Court will consider the merits of the Motion below.

Challenge to Service

“When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process ‘the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) A proof of service containing a declaration from a registered process server invokes a presumption of valid service. (See American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390; see also Evid. Code § 647.) This presumption is rebuttable. (See id.) The party seeking to defeat service of process must present sufficient evidence to show that the service did not take place as stated. (See Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1428; cf. People v. Chavez (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1471, 1483 [“If some fact be presumed, the opponent of that fact bears the burden of producing or going forward with evidence sufficient to overcome or rebut the presumed fact.”].) Merely denying service took place without more is insufficient to overcome the presumption. (See Yadegar, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at 1428.)

Plaintiff filed a proof of substitute service of the Summons and Complaint, which is not sworn by a registered process server. The proof of service filed on January 24, 2020 indicates that on January 22, 2020, the papers were dropped on the front porch at 3783 Colin Court, North Tonawonda, New York, in the presence of a 40-year old male of “Asian Ascent.” (Proof of Service, filed 1/24/20, ¶5.) The proof of service further indicates that the man would not physically take the papers. (Ibid.) The declaration of diligence that accompanies the proof of service reflects a single attempt at personal service the afternoon before the papers were dropped on the porch. (Id., Declaration of Diligence.)

The Court agrees with Defendant that the proof of service does not show compliance with the statutory requirements. A single attempt at personal service is insufficient prior to effectuating substitute service, which requires at least 2-3 attempts to personally deliver the papers. (Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Ham (2013) 216 Cal. App. 4th 330, 337.) The Court does find that leaving the papers on the porch in front of a person who refuses to physically accept them satisfies the requirement that the papers be left “in the presence of a competent member of the household.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b) (emphasis added).) However, Defendant submits a declaration stating that there was no member of her household of Asian or Asian-American ethnicity at the time of service, or anytime. (Motion, Zendano Decl., ¶¶3-5.) The only other member of Defendant’s household is her husband, who is of Italian descent. (Id. at ¶4.)

This evidence is sufficient to place the burden of proof on Plaintiff regarding proper service of the Summons and Complaint. Given the lack of any opposition, Plaintiff, has not offered evidence of compliance with the service requirements. Defendant, therefore, has demonstrated that no service of the Summons and Complaint has been accomplished pursuant to the statutory requirements.

Timing of Motion

“A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1), emphasis added.) A defendant has 30 days after the service of the summons to file a responsive pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 412.20, subd. (a)(3).) Defendant does not present evidence regarding when she learned of this action. However, the Motion was filed less than two months after the purported service of the Summons and the Complaint. The Court finds good cause exists for the timing of the instant Motion to Quash.

Conclusion

Defendant Irene Zendano’s Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 3, 2020 AT 9:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE PLAINTIFF IS TO DEMONSTRATE PROPER SERVICE OF THE MOTION AND NOTICE OF NEW HEARING DATE. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR DENIED. OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS TO BE FILED AND SERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

Moving party to give notice.