This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/28/2019 at 02:40:14 (UTC).

GUILLERMINA BAUTISTA CHAVEZ ET AL VS METROPOLITAN AUTOMOTIVE

Case Summary

On 08/28/2017 GUILLERMINA BAUTISTA CHAVEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against METROPOLITAN AUTOMOTIVE. 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:

    ****3311

  • Filing Date:

    08/28/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

BAUTISTA-CHAVEZ GUILLERMINA

CHAVEZ GUILLERMINA

CASTILLO GUILLERMINA

Respondents and Defendants

STAR AUTO PARTS

ENTERPRISE FM TRUST

GALLEGOS JOEL

METROPOLITAN AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE

GALLEGOS JOEL YOVANI

DOES 1 TO 50

STAR AUTO PARTS INC.

Not Classified By Court

CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

YAZDANPANAH HAMED ESQ.

YAZDANPANAH HAMED L ESQ.

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

8/28/2017: SUMMONS

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

8/28/2017: CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (NMGLIGENCE)

8/28/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (NMGLIGENCE)

Minute Order

5/23/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/11/2019: Minute Order

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service; Tri...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2019
  • Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service); Filed by Guillermina Bautista-Chavez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Guillermina Bautista-Chavez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (NMGLIGENCE)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2017
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Guillermina Bautista-Chavez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2017
  • CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: BC673311 Hearing Date: July 8, 2021 Dept: 32

\r\n\r\n

PLEASE NOTE: Parties who intend to submit on this\r\ntentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the\r\ntentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at\r\nwww.lacourt.org. If the department does\r\nnot receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and\r\nthere are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off\r\ncalendar. If a party submits on the\r\ntentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the\r\nparty submitting on the tentative. If\r\nthe parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear\r\nin-person or remotely.

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE\r\nRULING

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

DEPARTMENT

\r\n
\r\n

32

\r\n
\r\n

HEARING DATE

\r\n
\r\n

July\r\n 8, 2021

\r\n
\r\n

CASE NUMBER

\r\n
\r\n

BC673311

\r\n
\r\n

MOTION

\r\n
\r\n

Motion\r\n to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint

\r\n
\r\n

MOVING PARTY

\r\n
\r\n

Defendant\r\n Joel Gallegos, aka Joel Yovani Gallegos

\r\n
\r\n

OPPOSING PARTY

\r\n
\r\n

Plaintiff\r\n Guillermina Bautista-Chavez, aka Guillermina Chavez, aka Guillermina Castillo

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Joel Gallegos aka Joel\r\nYovani Gallegos (“Defendant”) appears specially and moves to quash service of\r\nthe summons and complaint. Plaintiff\r\nGuillermina Bautista-Chavez, aka Guillermina Chavez, aka Guillermina Castillo\r\n(“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or\r\nwithin any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and\r\nfile a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground\r\nof lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd.\r\n(a)(1).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“In the absence of a voluntary\r\nsubmission to the authority of the court, compliance with the statutes\r\ngoverning service of process is essential to establish that court's personal\r\njurisdiction over a defendant. When a defendant challenges that jurisdiction by\r\nbringing a motion to quash, the burden\r\nis on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter\r\nalia, the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co.\r\n(1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439–1440; accord Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160 [“It was incumbent\r\nupon plaintiff, after the filing of defendant's motion to quash, to present\r\nevidence discharging her burden to establish the requisites of valid service on\r\ndefendant”].)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A plaintiff may serve an\r\nindividual defendant “by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the\r\nperson's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or\r\nusual mailing address . . . , in the presence of a competent member of the\r\nhousehold or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of\r\nbusiness, or usual mailing address . . . , at least 18 years of age, who shall\r\nbe informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the\r\nsummons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person\r\nto be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were\r\nleft.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd.\r\n(b).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Plaintiff filed a proof of\r\nservice on June 13, 2019, which reflects service on Defendant via substituted\r\nservice at “535 Tennis Court Ln. in San Bernardino, California” – the business\r\naddress of Metropolitan Automotive Warehouse, Inc. (“MAW”) - on May 28, 2019. Plaintiff purportedly served Defendant via\r\nservice on Superintendent Avaristo (“Avaristo”).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant avers, however, that\r\nhis employment with MAW terminated in late 2015. (Declaration of Joel Y. Gallegos, ¶ 3.) Thus, on May 28, 2019, 535 Tennis Court Ln.,\r\nSan Bernardino, California was neither Defendant’s dwelling house, usual place\r\nof abode, usual place of business, nor usual mailing address. (See Declaration of Joel Y. Gallegos, ¶\r\n4.) Accordingly, the service of the\r\nsummons and complaint on Defendant via Avaristo is invalid.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In opposition, Plaintiff\r\nargues that, despite deficient service, Defendant’s actual notice in this\r\ninstance is sufficient to permit the case to proceed. The Court disagrees. A defendant’s knowledge of an action does not\r\ndispense with the statutory requirements for service of summons. (See Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997)\r\n53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808 [“notice does not substitute for proper service”].)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Consequently, the Court grants\r\nDefendant’s motion to quash the service of the summons and complaint on\r\nDefendant. The Clerk of the Court shall\r\nprovide notice of the Court’s order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n"
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where STAR AUTO PARTS INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where ENTERPRISE FM TRUST INC. A CORPORATION is a litigant