This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/08/2019 at 02:17:06 (UTC).

JAKLYN HANDLIN ET LA VS WILLIAM WILKINSON ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/25/2018 JAKLYN HANDLIN ET LA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against WILLIAM WILKINSON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1446

  • Filing Date:

    01/25/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

HANDLIN JAKLYN

SERRATOS-HANDLIN STEPHANIE

SERRATOS-HANDLIR GLENN

Defendants and Respondents

HERNANDEZ KARLA

WILKINSON NATALIE

DOES 1 TO 25

WILKINSON WILLIAM

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorney

SHEMTOUB MICHAEL

 

Court Documents

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

1/25/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

CIVIL DEPOSIT

3/2/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

2/16/2018: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

2/16/2018: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

2/16/2018: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/02/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • Receipt; Filed by Jaklyn Handlin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Jaklyn Handlin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Stephanie Serratos-Handlin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Glenn Serratos-Handlir (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Jaklyn Handlin (Plaintiff); Glenn Serratos-Handlir (Plaintiff); Stephanie Serratos-Handlin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC691446    Hearing Date: March 18, 2021    Dept: 28

Motion to Dismiss; Motion to Quash

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On January 25, 2018, Plaintiffs Jaklyn Handlin, Glenn Serratos-Handlin, and Stephanie Serratos-Handlin (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants William Wilkinson, Natalie Wilkinson (collectively “Wilkinson Defendants”), and Karla Hernandez.  Plaintiffs allege general and motor vehicle negligence arising from an automobile collision that occurred on January 29, 2016.

On January 25, 2021, the Wilkinson Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420 and a motion to quash pursuant to 415.20.

Trial is set for April 7, 2022.

PARTIES REQUESTS

The Wilkinson Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs action because Plaintiffs waited nearly three years to serve the summons and complaint on the Wilkinson Defendants since the filing of the complaint.

The Wilkinson Defendants also ask the Court to quash the proofs of service filed on December 18, 2020 because Plaintiffs failed to show adequate diligence to personally serve the summons and complaint on the Wilkinson Defendants before effectuating substituted service.

LEGAL STANDARD

Motion to Dismiss

“The court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution. . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 583.410.)  However, a court must first find either: (1) service has not been effectuated within two years since commencement of the action, (2) an action is not brought to trial within three years after it is commenced against a defendant, or (3) a new trial is granted and the action is not brought to trial within a certain time.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 583.420, subd. (a).)

After California Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420, subdivision (a) is satisfied, the Court analyzes a variety of relevant factors, including those prescribed in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1342, subdivision (e).

“(1) The court’s file in the case and the declarations and supporting data submitted by the parties and, where applicable, the availability of the moving party and other essential parties for service of process;

(2) The diligence in seeking to effect service of process;

(3) The extent to which the parties engaged in any settlement negotiations or discussions;

(4) The diligence of the parties in pursuing discovery or other pretrial proceedings, including any extraordinary relief sought by either party;

(5) The nature and complexity of the case;

(6) The law applicable to the case, including the pendency of other litigation under a common set of facts or determinative of the legal or factual issues in the case;

(7) The nature of any extensions of time or other delay attributable to either party;

(8) The condition of the court’s calendar and the availability of an earlier trial date if the matter was ready for trial;

(9) Whether the interests of justice are best served by dismissal or trial of the case; and

(10) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to a fair determination of the issue.”

California Rules of Civil Procedure section 581 enumerates a number of reasons for which a complaint may be dismissed.  However, California Rules of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (m) makes clear that list is not exhaustive.

Motion to Quash

“A defendant who makes a general appearance forfeits any objection to defective service . . . .”  (Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Sparks Construction, Inc. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1148.)  A defendant makes a general appearance when seeking relief on any basis other than lack of personal jurisdiction.  (Greener v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1028, 1037.)

DISCUSSION

Motion to Dismiss

The Court exercises its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs have been litigating this case in getting a July 25, 2019 dismissal set aside and participating in a number of hearings in this action.  Moreover, the declarations of diligence attached to the proofs of service filed on December 18, 2020 show Plaintiffs were attempting to serve the Wilkinson Defendants throughout December of 2020.  The Court finds these efforts are sufficient to deny the motion to dismiss.

Motion to Quash

The Wilkinson Defendants have appeared generally by virtue of their motion to dismiss.  They have sought dispositive relief against Plaintiff’s complaint.  The Wilkinson Defendants do not argue in the motion to dismiss that the action should be dismissed because the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the Wilkinson Defendants.  Rather, the Wilkinson Defendants argue that Plaintiffs waited nearly three year to serve the Wilkinson Defendants with the summons and complaint.  Importantly, the Wilkinson Defendants do not ask for the Court to dismiss the action as an alternative to not granting the motion to quash.  In failing to do so, the Wilkinson Defendants argument in their motion to dismiss presumes that the service was proper.  Therefore, the motion to quash must be denied because the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Wilkinson Defendants.

CONCLUSION

The motion to dismiss is DENIED.

The motion to quash is DENIED.

The Wilkinson Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The Wilkinson Defendants are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.