This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/15/2021 at 01:42:36 (UTC).

UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY VS LAQUAITA D HALEY

Case Summary

On 03/02/2020 UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against LAQUAITA D HALEY. 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:

    *******2038

  • Filing Date:

    03/02/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY

SZLOSEK CRYSTAL

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

HALEY LAQUAITA D.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

NIVINSKUS MARK

Defendant Attorney

SWAN ANGELA

 

Court Documents

Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

9/29/2021: Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

9/30/2021: Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

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

12/21/2020: Motion to Quash Service of Summons - Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defandants Motion

2/25/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defandants Motion

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

3/15/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

Answer - Answer

4/5/2021: Answer - Answer

Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

4/6/2021: Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration CCP 98

8/12/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration CCP 98

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Continuance of Trial) of 08/20/2021

8/20/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Continuance of Trial) of 08/20/2021

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Continuance of Trial)

8/20/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Continuance of Trial)

Trial Brief - Trial Brief

8/23/2021: Trial Brief - Trial Brief

Exhibit List - Exhibit List

8/23/2021: Exhibit List - Exhibit List

Witness List - Witness List

8/23/2021: Witness List - Witness List

Statement of the Case - Statement of the Case

8/23/2021: Statement of the Case - Statement of the Case

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

6/8/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

6/8/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

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

6/22/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death) - Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)

3/2/2020: Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death) - Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/06/2021
  • Hearing12/06/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 12/06/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/06/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 09/30/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/04/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 09/30/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice of Settlement: Status Date changed from 09/29/2021 to 09/29/2021; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketStatement of the Case; Filed by: United Financial Casualty Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketWitness List; Filed by: United Financial Casualty Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketTrial Brief; Filed by: United Financial Casualty Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketExhibit List; Filed by: United Financial Casualty Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 06/08/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/06/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: United Financial Casualty Company (Plaintiff); As to: Laquaita D. Haley (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: United Financial Casualty Company (Plaintiff); As to: Laquaita D. Haley (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketStatement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death); Filed by: United Financial Casualty Company (Plaintiff); As to: Laquaita D. Haley (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: United Financial Casualty Company (Plaintiff); As to: Laquaita D. Haley (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC02038    Hearing Date: March 15, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:   Mon., March 15, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME United Financial Cas. Co v. Haley  COMPL. FILED: 03-02-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC02038 DISC. C/O: 07-31-21

NOTICE:   NO MOTION C/O: 08-15-21

TRIAL DATE: 08-30-21

PROCEEDINGS    MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF’S SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Laquaita D. Haley

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff United Financial Casualty Company

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

(CCP § 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Laquaita D. Haley’s Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Service of Summons and Complaint is DENIED.

SERVICE

[   ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) NO

[   ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO

[   ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NO  

OPPOSITION: Filed on February 25, 2021 [   ] Late [   ] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 11, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff United Financial Casualty Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Laquaita D. Haley (“Defendant”). On June 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a proof of service purporting to show that Defendant was served on March 16, 2020 by substitute service at 20029 Cliveden Ave., Carson, CA 90746 (the “Cliveden Address”). (6/22/20 Proof of Service.) The proof of service states a registered process server served occupant “Mrs. Haley” described as an African American female, 52 years old, black hair, brown eyes, 5’5” tall, weighing 145 pounds on behalf of Defendant. (Id.

On December 21, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Service of Summons and Complaint and Dismiss the Case for Lack of Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction (the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on February 25, 2021. No reply brief 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 412.20, subd. (a)(3).)

 (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)

As an initial matter, the Court notes the Motion does not include a proof of service demonstrating the Motion was properly served on Plaintiff. Failure to give notice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.) However, because Plaintiff has filed an Opposition on the merits, the Court proceeds to make a ruling.

First, Defendant admits that she received notice the lawsuit had been served on March 16, 2020. (Mot., Haley Decl., p. 1.) Yet, Defendant does not explain why she waited over eight months to file the instant Motion challenging service.

Plaintiff argues Defendant was properly served as evidenced by its proof of service. (Oppo., pp. 4-7.) As noted above, the proof of service for the Summons and Complaint is signed by a registered process server stating Defendant was substitute served. (6/22/20 Proof of Service.)

“An individual may be served by substitute service only after a good faith effort at personal service has first been made: the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the summons and complaint ‘cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered’ to defendants. [Citations.] Two or three attempts to personally serve a defendant at a proper place ordinarily qualifies as ‘reasonable diligence.’” (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 389.) (Italics added.) If the summons and complaint cannot be personally delivered with reasonable diligence, then a copy may be served at the person’s “dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box…who shall be informed of the contents thereof and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the person to be served…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)

The proof of service contains a declaration of due diligence indicating that the process server attempted to personally serve Defendant on three occasions. (6/22/20 Proof of Service.) On the third attempt, the process server served “Mrs. Haley” as described above. (Id.) The proof of service also includes a declaration of mailing stating that a copy of the Summons and Complaint was mailed to the Cliveden Address on March 17, 2020. (Id.) 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.) Thus, the Court finds this carries Plaintiff’s burden.

In her moving papers, Defendant only provides her own self-serving declaration stating that on March 16, 2020, she received a call from her fifteen-year-old son informing her “someone came to the door and handed him a copy of the Summons and Complaint.” (Mot., Haley Decl., p. 1.) However, merely denying service took place without more is insufficient to overcome the presumption. (See Yadegar, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at 1428.) Notably, she does not deny, for example, that someone at the Cliveden Address meets the description of the person described in the proof of service. Thus, the Court finds Defendant has not rebutted the presumption.

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Laquaita D. Haley’s Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Service of Summons and Complaint is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where United Financial Casualty Insurance Company is a litigant