This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/29/2021 at 05:43:18 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS ARSENIO HERRERA CONTRERAS

Case Summary

On 04/23/2020 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ARSENIO HERRERA CONTRERAS. 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:

    *******3575

  • Filing Date:

    04/23/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant

CONTRERAS ARSENIO HERRERA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

STRUMWASSER GREGG

Defendant Attorneys

VAN RACHEL NGOC-HANH

CAOILE MICHAEL F.

 

Court Documents

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

11/1/2021: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

11/1/2021: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

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

10/27/2020: Motion to Quash Service of Summons - Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF RACHEL N. VAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

10/27/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF RACHEL N. VAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

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

2/2/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

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

3/25/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service;)

4/2/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service;)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service;) of 04/02/2021

4/2/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service;) of 04/02/2021

Answer - Answer

4/30/2021: Answer - Answer

Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Status of Filing of Answer or Entry o...)

8/2/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Status of Filing of Answer or Entry o...)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)

8/2/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Nunc Pro Tunc Order) of 08/02/2021

8/2/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Nunc Pro Tunc Order) of 08/02/2021

Notice (name extension) - Notice of ruling

8/2/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of ruling

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

8/20/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

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

8/25/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/28/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

4/23/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [First Amended Standing Order, Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case]

5/14/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [First Amended Standing Order, Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case]

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/05/2022
  • Hearing10/05/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2022
  • Hearing01/27/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2022
  • Hearing01/27/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,110.00 (CRS #044613559897): Name Extension: Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,110.00 (CRS #044613559897); Document changed from Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion to Motion to Compel (name extension); As To Parties changed from ARSENIO HERRERA CONTRERAS (Defendant) to ARSENIO HERRERA CONTRERAS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,110.00 (CRS #126356529417): Name Extension: Responses to Request for Production, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,110.00 (CRS #126356529417); Document changed from Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion to Motion to Compel (name extension); As To Parties changed from ARSENIO HERRERA CONTRERAS (Defendant) to ARSENIO HERRERA CONTRERAS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Event scheduled for 01/27/2022 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Type changed from Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") to Hearing on Motion to Compel (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Event scheduled for 01/27/2022 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Type changed from Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") to Hearing on Motion to Compel (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Event scheduled for 10/05/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Type changed from Non-Jury Trial to Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 01/27/2022 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 01/27/2022 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
28 More Docket Entries
  • 05/14/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for [First Amended Standing Order, Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case]; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- First Amended Standing Order: As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/27/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: ARSENIO HERRERA CONTRERAS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: ARSENIO HERRERA CONTRERAS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: ARSENIO HERRERA CONTRERAS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC03575    Hearing Date: February 02, 2021    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Contreras, et al.

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

(CCP § 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Arsenio Herrera Contreras’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED.

Trial date set for October 21, 2021 is vacated.

ANALYSIS:

On April 23, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Arsenio Herrera Contreras (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed a proof of substitute service with respect to Defendant on August 25, 2020. On October 27, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint.

To date, no oppostion has been filed.

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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1), emphasis added.)

“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. (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 with respect to Defendant. (Proof of Service, filed 8/25/20.) The proof of service is attested to by a registered process service and is therefore entitled to a presumption of validity. (Proof of Service, filed 7/23/20, ¶7(e)(3).) It states that Defendant was sub-served by leaving the papers with “John Doe – Co Occupant” at 12555 221st Street, Hawaiian Gardens, California on August 16, 2020 at 11:33 am, and thereafter mailing the papers on August 17, 2020 to the same address. (Id. at ¶5 and Proof of Service by Mail.)

Before considering the evidence in support of the Motion, the Court must determine if the proof of service facially describes a proper method of service. The Court finds that the proof of service does not describe proper substitute service on Defendant. Substitute service at a person’s dwelling place requires reasonable diligence at personal service beforehand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).) “[I]n order to avail oneself of substituted service under section 415.20, “[t]wo or three attempts to personally serve a defendant at a proper place ordinarily qualifies as ‘reasonable diligence.’” (Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Ham (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 330, 337.)

The declaration of diligence filed with the Proof of Substitute Service indicates that the process server tried three times to personally serve Defendant with the Summons and Complaint at the service address, from August 11 to 16, 2020. (Proof of Service, Declaration of Diligence.) On the third attempt on August 16, 2020, the process server was informed by the occupant that Defendant had “moved 4 years ago.” (Ibid.) Despite being informed that the address at which service was attempt was improper because it was not Defendant’s “the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b), the process server proceeded to leave the papers with the occupant of the wrong address. (Ibid.)

On its face, therefore, the Proof of Substitute Service demonstrates that the Summons and Complaint were not served at a proper location. This is further corroborated by the declaration of Jose Parades, the occupant of the service address to whom the papers were handed. (Motion, Van Decl., Exh. B.) This evidence carries Defendant’s burden of proof to quash service of the Summons and Complaint and shifts the burden to Plaintiff to demonstrate that service was proper. As no opposition to the Motion has been filed, however, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the substitute service complies with the statutory requirements.

Finally, Court finds good cause for the timing of the Motion. Service was never effectuated on Defendant so his last day to respond to the Complaint has not yet occurred.

Conclusion

Defendant Arsenio Herrera Contreras’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED.

Trial date set for October 21, 2021 is vacated.

Court clerk to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer CAOILE MICHAEL F.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer VAN RACHEL NGOC-HANH