This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/22/2020 at 06:37:46 (UTC).

ELLIS T CARDENAS VS ROBERT GIBBS ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/01/2018 ELLIS T CARDENAS filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ROBERT GIBBS. 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 Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6001

  • Filing Date:

    03/01/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CARDENAS ELLIS T.

Defendants and Respondents

GIBBS ROBERT

HOPPER STEPHEN

DOES 1 TO 20

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

JOYNER WAYNE ESQ.

HEIDARI SAM RYAN

JOYNER WAYNE

Defendant Attorneys

AMOR HANNAH A. ESQ.

CHO DANIEL S

 

Court Documents

Order for Publication

8/7/2020: Order for Publication

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

2/20/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS)

11/13/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS)

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MARIA E. CERVANTES ISO MOTION TO QUASH

10/15/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MARIA E. CERVANTES ISO MOTION TO QUASH

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS)

9/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS)

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT GIBES' SECOND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS

9/5/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT GIBES' SECOND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS

Declaration - DECLARATION 56.4322

7/26/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION 56.4322

Notice of Motion

7/26/2019: Notice of Motion

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

7/22/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER: HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS) OF 04/30/2019

4/30/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER: HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS) OF 04/30/2019

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH HEARING

4/30/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH HEARING

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER: HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS)

4/30/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER: HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ERIN MOLODY-ROSENFELD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT GIBBS' MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS

4/19/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ERIN MOLODY-ROSENFELD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT GIBBS' MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS

Motion to Quash - INDEX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ROBERT GIBBS' MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS

3/26/2019: Motion to Quash - INDEX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ROBERT GIBBS' MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF GENNA B. DELANY

3/26/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF GENNA B. DELANY

Declaration - DECLARATION OF GENNA B. DELANY IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS, ETC.

3/21/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF GENNA B. DELANY IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS, ETC.

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/13/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

3/1/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

52 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/28/2021
  • Hearing09/28/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2021
  • Hearing09/14/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection of Electronic Filing; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketOrder for Publication; Filed by Ellis T. Cardenas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re: August 07, 2020)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
63 More Docket Entries
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketAssociation of Attorney; Filed by Hannah A. Amor, Esq. (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2018
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Sam Ryan Heidari (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Stephen Hopper (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Ellis T. Cardenas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ellis T. Cardenas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Ellis T. Cardenas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC696001    Hearing Date: November 13, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

Ellis T. Cardenas,

Plaintiff,

v.

Robert gibbs, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC696001

Hearing Date: November 13, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Specially Appearing defendant’s motion to quash service of process

BACKGROUND

Defendant Robert Gibbs (“Defendant”) specially appears and moves to quash service of the summons and complaint. Plaintiff Elis T. Cardenas (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion, which is granted.

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.)

EVIDENCE

Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s evidence are overruled. Defendant’s evidence has sufficient foundation and is admissible.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed a proof of service by Bennie Hamilton (“Hamilton”), who is a registered process server. A proof of service containing a declaration from a registered process server invokes a presumption of valid service the party seeking to defeat service of process must overcome. (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara, 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390; see also Evid. Code, § 647.) Hamilton states that he served Defendant via personal service at 3900 Roxanne Avenue, Apartment #6, in Los Angeles, California (“Apartment #6”) on June 26, 2019. (See Proof of Service of Summons, filed July 2, 2019.) As Plaintiff effectuated service via a registered process server, Plaintiff’s service is entitled to a presumption of validity. Defendant is therefore “required to produce evidence that he was not served.” (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390.)

Defendant proffers a declaration from Anthony Dawodu (“Dawodu”), who works for Jones & Jones Management Group, the manager of the apartment building where Hamilton served Defendant. Dawodu states that Defendant moved out of Apartment #6 a few years ago. (Declaration of Anothony Dawodu, ¶¶ 4.)

Defendant proffers a declaration from Maria E. Cervantes (“Cervantes”). Cervantes states that she and her boyfriend, Michael Gibson, have been the only tenants of Apartment #6 since May 30, 2019. (Declaration of Maria E. Cervantes, ¶ 3.) She states that she and her boyfriend were home alone on June 26, 2019, when the process server woke them looking for Defendant, who was not present. (Id., ¶¶ 4-5.)

Finally, Defendant proffers a declaration from Michael Gibson (“Gibson”). Gibson states that he and Cervantes have been the only tenants of Apartment #6 since May 30, 2019. (Declaration of Michael Gibson, ¶ 3.) Gibson states that he and Cervantes were home alone on June 26, 2019, when the process server work them looking for Defendant. (Id., ¶ 4.) Gibson states that he answered the door, and the process server asked “three or four times” whether he was Defendant. (Id., ¶ 5.) Gibson states that he kept telling the process server that he was not Defendant, and the process server “threw an envelope on the ground and told [him] that [he had] been served.” (Ibid.) This conversation is corroborated by Cervantes’ declaration. (Declaration of Maria E. Cervantes, ¶ 5.)

Defendant’s evidence is sufficient to establish that Plaintiff did not properly serve Defendant. Plaintiff opposes the motion by arguing that this is an improper motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order of September 18, 2019. In that order, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to quash without prejudice to bringing another such motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s argument is meritless.

Plaintiff proffers a declaration from his counsel, Sam Ryan Heidari (“Heidari”). Heidari states, “I never received any phone call from any person named Michael [Gibson] and advising that he was served improperly or incorrectly by a process server with the summons and complaint intended for Robert Gibbs.” (Declaration of Sam Ryan Heidari, ¶ 3.) This is immaterial. There is no requirement that a third party notify Plaintiff’s counsel of improper service. Regardless of whether Michael Gibson or Maria Cervantes notified Plaintiff’s counsel, service was improper.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion to quash is granted. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: November 13, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court