VENTURA RETANA VS EAN HOLDINGS LLC ET AL
Case Summary
On 12/12/2016 VENTURA RETANA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against EAN HOLDINGS LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
****3679
-
Filing Date:
12/12/2016
-
Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending
-
Courthouse:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Judge Details
Presiding Judge
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
Party Details
Plaintiff and Petitioner
RETANA VENTURA
Defendants and Respondents
EAN HOLDINGS LLC
JIA CHENDI
DOES 1 TO 50
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney
GOLDSZER RONALD I. ESQ.
Defendant Attorney
MILLER ADAM I. ESQ.
Court Documents
12/12/2016: SUMMONS
12/12/2016: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
4/9/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
5/2/2018: DECLARATION OF ADAM I. MILLER FOR 30-DAY AUTO EXTENSION PURSUANT TO C.C.P SECTION 430.41
5/24/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
5/29/2018: Minute Order
7/5/2018: EAN HOLDINGS, LLC?S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
7/5/2018: DEFENDANTS EAN HOLDINGS, LLC?S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF VENTURA RETANA; DECLARATION OF ADAM I. MILLER; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
1/9/2019: Minute Order
4/2/2019: Declaration
4/4/2019: Minute Order
5/7/2019: Unknown
Docket Entries
- 05/07/2019
-
Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing (for Publication re: Chendi)
- 04/04/2019
-
at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; (OSC RE Dismissal for failure to serve Deft. Chendi Jia / alt. Trial Setting Conference) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion
- 04/04/2019
-
Minute Order ( (Legacy Event Type : OSC RE Dismissal for failure to serve Def...)); Filed by Clerk
- 04/02/2019
-
Declaration (Declaration of Ronald I. Goldszer RE Failure to Serve DefendaNt Chendi Jia Via Publication); Filed by Ventura Retana (Plaintiff)
- 01/09/2019
-
at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; (OSC RE Dismissal) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion
- 01/09/2019
-
Minute Order ((Legacy Event Type : OSC RE Dismissal)); Filed by Clerk
- 09/07/2018
-
Partial Dismissal (with Prejudice); Filed by Ventura Retana (Plaintiff)
- 08/16/2018
-
at 1:30 PM in Department 5; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (DEMURRER; Off Calendar) -
- 08/16/2018
-
Minute order entered: 2018-08-16 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk
- 07/05/2018
-
EAN HOLDINGS, LLC S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
- 05/29/2018
-
Minute order entered: 2018-05-29 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk
- 05/24/2018
-
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
- 05/24/2018
-
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Ventura Retana (Plaintiff)
- 05/02/2018
-
DECLARATION OF ADAM I. MILLER FOR 30-DAY AUTO EXTENSION PURSUANT TO C.C.P SECTION 430.41
- 05/02/2018
-
Declaration; Filed by Ean Holdings, LLC (Defendant)
- 04/09/2018
-
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Ventura Retana (Plaintiff)
- 04/09/2018
-
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
- 12/12/2016
-
Complaint; Filed by Ventura Retana (Plaintiff)
- 12/12/2016
-
SUMMONS
- 12/12/2016
-
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: BC643679 Hearing Date: January 30, 2020 Dept: 32
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 32
|
ventura retana, Plaintiff, v.
ean holdings, llc, et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: BC643679
Hearing Date: January 30, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE: Specially Appearing defendant’s motion to quash service of process |
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ventura Retana (“Plaintiff”) filed this action following a motor vehicle collision with Defendant Chendi Jia (“Defendant”). Defendant specially appears and moves to quash service of the summons and complaint. The motion is denied.
LEGAL STANDARD
“When a defendant challenges . . . jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving . . . the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-40.) Nonetheless, the defendant “must present some admissible evidence (declarations or affidavits) to place the issue before the court (by showing the absence of minimum contacts with the state) . . . .” (School Dist. of Okaloosa County v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1131.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff obtained an order to serve Defendant by publication in the Detroit Legal News, Ingham County Legal News, and the Los Angeles Daily Journal. Defendant argues that service was not proper because Defendant was not a resident of Los Angeles, Detroit, or Ingham County at the time of the order. If the evidence in support of the application for the order for service by publication are incorrect, the service by that method is void. (See Olvera v. Olvera (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 32, 41.) Defendant has not, however, proffered any admissible evidence demonstrating that service by publication was improper. Defendant relies on a report from Branson Investigative Services, but that report is hearsay with respect to the truth of its contents. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) Regardless, the report states only that Branson Investigative Services could not locate Defendant. It does not establish that Defendant is not a resident of Los Angeles, or Detroit or Ingham County. Accordingly, Defendant has not shown that service was improper.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Defendant’s motion to quash is denied. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
DATED: January 30, 2020 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases