This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/18/2016 at 06:28:10 (UTC).

HAMILTON, WILLIAM J. VS. PADILLA, SALVADOR

Case Summary

On 12/03/2013 HAMILTON, WILLIAM J filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against PADILLA, SALVADOR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is BENNY C. OSORIO. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5777

  • Filing Date:

    12/03/2013

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

BENNY C. OSORIO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HAMILTON WILLIAM J.

Defendants

PADILLA SALVADOR

PADILLA LEANN

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/02/2016
  • ORDER ALLOWING SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION SIGNED AND FILED. FOR LEANN PADILLA NEWSPAPER THE DAILY TRANSCIPT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2016
  • ORDER ALLOWING SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION SIGNED AND FILED. FOR SALVADOR PADILLA NEWSPAPER THE DAILY TRANSCRIPT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2016
  • APPLICATION FOR PUBLICATION FOR LEANN PADILLA NO FEE WAIVER RECEIVED AS TO PLAINTIFF .

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2016
  • APPLICATION FOR PUBLICATION FOR SALVADOR PADILLA NO FEE WAIVER RECEIVED AS TO PLAINTIFF .

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2016
  • APPLICATION FOR PUBLICATION-FEES PREVIOUSLY WAIVED ON12/3/15 FILED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2013
  • * CASE RENUMBERED FROM CHA13A25777 TO LAM13A25777

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2013
  • CLERK`S NOTICE TRANSFER OF NON-COLLECTION CASE FILED AND MAILED TO RESPECTIVE PARTIES/COUNSEL. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2013
  • * CASE REASSIGNED TO THE STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2013
  • CAUSE CALLED AT 08:30A M, IN DEPT. F43 , HON. BENNY C. OSORIO, JUDGE PRESIDING FOR HEARING RE: IN CHAMBERS-CASE REVIEW . THE COURT RULES AS FOLLOWS: AS OF 3/18/13, THIS DEPARTMENT WILL ACCEPT AND MANAGE ONLY LIMITED JURISDICTION CASES THAT ARE COLLECTION CASES AS DEFINED BY CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT SECTION 3.740. UPON REVIEW, THE COURT FINDS THAT THIS CASE IS NOT A COLLECTIONS CASE. THEREFORE, FOR THE REASON INDICATED, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ABOVE CASE BE TRANSFERRED FOR REASSIGNMENT FORTHWITH TO DEPARTMENT 77, STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE, 111 N. HILL STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012: THIS CASE IS TO BE DESIGNATED OTHER-CONTRACT (PROFESSIONAL SERVICES).

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2013
  • CASE FILE FORWARDED TO DEPARTMENT F43 RE: JUDICIAL REVIEW.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2013
  • MANAGER'S OFFICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2013
  • COLLECTIONS CASE COMPLAINT FILED PURSUANT TO CRC 3.740. RN FEE WAIVER.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2013
  • SUMMONS ISSUED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2013
  • SUMMONS FILED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2013
  • REQUEST TO WAIVE COURT FEES FILED BY (HAMILTON, WILLIAM J.) .

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2013
  • ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO WAIVE COURT FEES SIGNED AND FILED AS TO (HAMILTON, WILLIAM J.) .

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2013
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING SIGNED AND FILED BY BENNY C. OSORIO, JUDGE TO SHOW WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CRC 3.740(F). MATTER CONTINUED FOR HEARING ON 12/01/16 AT 08:30A M., IN DEPT. 077 . CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILED, GIVEN TO RESPECTIVE PARTIES/ COUNSEL.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 13A25777    Hearing Date: November 06, 2019    Dept: 94

Hamilton v. Padilla, et al.

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS

(CCP § 430.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Salvador Padilla and LeAnn Tartar’s Motion to Quash Service of Process is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

Plaintiff William J. Hamilton (“Plaintiff”) brought this breach-of-contract action against Defendants Salvador Padilla and LeAnn Tartar (collectively, “Defendants”) on December 3, 2013. The Court had previously granted Defendants’ motion to vacate default and default judgment under CCP § 473.5 for lack of actual notice and denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss under CCP § 583.210. Defendants now bring a Motion to Quash service by publication even though that service was authorized by the Court.

II. Discussion

“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.” (CCP § 418.10(a)(1), emphasis added.) A defendant has 30 days after the service of the summons to file a responsive pleading. (Id. § 412.20(a)(3).) “Failure to make a motion under this section at the time of filing a demurrer or motion to strike constitutes a waiver of the issues of lack of personal jurisdiction, inadequacy of process, inadequacy of service of process, inconvenient forum, and delay in prosecution.” (Id. § 418.10(e)(3).)

Here, when the Court vacated the default and default judgment against Defendants on February 13, 2019, Defendants had 30 days to file a motion to quash service of process from that date. Defendants, however, waited seven months to file the instant Motion. Accordingly, the Motion is untimely and Defendants have waived the issues of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Even if the Court were to consider the Motion on the merits, “the provisions of the rules governing service of process are to be liberally construed. [Citation.] [Citation.]” (Carol Gilbert, Inc. v. Haller (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 852, 861.) “The rule of liberal construction of service rules is designed to ‘‘uphold jurisdiction of the court, thus insuring the opportunity for a trial on the merits.’’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 865.)

In the Motion, Plaintiffs make various arguments alleging that the facts provided in Plaintiff’s application for service by publication were not sufficiently specific. However, the level of specificity that Defendants are demanding now did not dissuade the Court from granting the application for service by publication then, and it does not persuade the Court now. Furthermore, the application for service by publication was based on reasonable diligence by the sheriff in their attempts to personally serve the Defendants. Thus, the Court is not persuaded that the Motion is meritorious.

III. Conclusion & Order

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.