This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/01/2021 at 00:43:40 (UTC).

IN JEE RA VS JUAN MARCELO CHAVEZ GARRO, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 11/20/2020 IN JEE RA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JUAN MARCELO CHAVEZ GARRO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9760

  • Filing Date:

    11/20/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

RA IN JEE

Defendants

CHAVEZ GARRO JUAN MARCELO

CISNEROS MANUEL

CISNEROS DAYSI

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KIM GARY J

Defendant Attorney

KIM STEVE

 

Court Documents

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

3/30/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

Answer - Answer

12/29/2020: Answer - Answer

Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

12/29/2020: Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

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

1/7/2021: Motion to Quash Service of Summons - Motion to Quash Service of Summons

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

11/20/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Summons - Summons on Complaint

11/20/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

11/20/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/20/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

11/20/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/27/2023
  • Hearing11/27/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2022
  • Hearing05/20/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 03/30/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 03/30/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 03/30/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2021
  • DocketMotion to Quash Service of Summons; Filed by: Juan Marcelo Chavez Garro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2021
  • DocketPursuant to the request of moving party, Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint scheduled for 06/15/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party on 01/07/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2020
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by: Daysi Cisneros (Defendant); Manuel Cisneros (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Daysi Cisneros (Defendant); Manuel Cisneros (Defendant); As to: In Jee Ra (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/27/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/20/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: In Jee Ra (Plaintiff); As to: Juan Marcelo Chavez Garro (Defendant); Daysi Cisneros (Defendant); Manuel Cisneros (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: In Jee Ra (Plaintiff); As to: Juan Marcelo Chavez Garro (Defendant); Daysi Cisneros (Defendant); Manuel Cisneros (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: In Jee Ra (Plaintiff); As to: Juan Marcelo Chavez Garro (Defendant); Daysi Cisneros (Defendant); Manuel Cisneros (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC09760    Hearing Date: March 30, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., March 30, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Ra v. Garro, et al. COMPL. FILED: 11-20-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC09760 DISC. C/O: 04-20-22

NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: 05-05-22

TRIAL DATE: 05-20-22

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AS TO JUAN GARRO

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Juan Marcelo Chavez Garro

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

(CCP § 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Juan Marcelo Chavez Garro’s unopposed Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of March 26, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 26, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On November 20, 2020, Plaintiff In Jee Ra (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Defendants Juan Marcelo Chaves Garro (“Garro”), Daysi Cisneros (“Daysi”), and Manuel Cisneros (“Manuel”). Defendants Daysi and Manuel filed an Answer on December 29, 2020.

Defendant Garro filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint (the “Motion”) on January 7, 2021. No opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard

“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 plus ten calendar days if substitute-served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 412.20, subd. (a)(3); Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20.)

“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.)

  1. Discussion

Plaintiff has not yet filed any proof of service. However, Defendant Garro’s counsel provides a copy of Plaintiff’s claimed proof of service for Defendant Garro. (Mot., Kim Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)

The proof of service purports to show that Defendant Garro was served via substitute service on December 1, 2020 by leaving a copy of the Summons and Complaint at his home address with Defendant Daysi, “co-occupant”, at 11315 Mansel Ave., Inglewood, CA 90304 (the “Inglewood Address”). (Id.) Service was purportedly effectuated by Livingston Beckford, a registered process server. (Id.) Thus, the proof of service is entitled to a presumption of validity. (See American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390; see also Evid. Code § 647.)

Defendant Garro submits as evidence the declarations of Defendants Daysi and Manuel. Both attest that they have resided at the Inglewood Address for over 20 years and that Defendant Garro does not, and never has, resided at the Inglewood Address. (Mot., Daysi Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Manuel Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) In addition, Defendant Daysi states that at the time she was served on behalf of Defendant Garro, she informed the process server Defendant Garro did not live at the Inglewood Address and that he lived in Costa Rica. (Id., Daysi Decl., ¶ 5.) Despite being told Defendant Garro did not live there, the process server proceeded to leave the Summons and Complaint with Defendant Daysi anyway. (Id.)

The above evidence is sufficient to overcome the presumption of proper service. Notably, Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition demonstrating otherwise. Accordingly, Defendant Garro’s Motion is GRANTED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Juan Marcelo Chavez Garro’s unopposed Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KIM STEVE