1 This Motion is made on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over defendant in that

2
defendant was not properly served with a copy of the summons and complaint as required by
3
415.10415.45 and 1167 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4

5 This Motion will be based on this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum, the
6
Declarations in support of this Motion attached to this Notice and served and filed with this
7
Notice, the papers and records on file in this action, and such oral and documentary evidence as
8

9 may be presented at the hearing of this Motion.

10

11
Date: _________________________________

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
DEFENDANT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; SUPPORTING
MEMORANDUM; DEFENDAN H DECLARATION (BY SPECIAL APPEARANCE); - 2
 1 SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM
2

3 STATEMENT OF FACTS

4
The present action is one in unlawful detainer. Defendant was not served properly with the
5
summons and complaint. Defendant was not personally given a copy of the summons and the
6

7 complaint. A copy of the summons and complaint was placed under defendants front door. No

8 one tried to personally serve defendant with the summons and complaint. Defendant did live
9
with an adult who could have received a copy of the summons and complaint for defendant. A
10
copy of the summons and complaint was not mailed. The Defendant vacated the premises on
11
June 1, 2015 and the Plaintiff was personally aware of Defendants new residence and
12

13 Defendants turning over the premises to Plaintiff.

14
ARGUMENT
15

16
A MOTION TO QUASH LIES WHEN THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER
17 THE DEFENDANT
18 Section 418.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a motion to quash service of
19
summons may be filed on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over defendant. It appears
20
that this matter was filed on May 19, 2015, and a Motion Approving Service was granted on
21
May 28, 2015. Between May 19, 2015 and May 28, 2015, Ms. had been in constant
22

23 and consistent contact with the plaintiffs agent. She worked out a payment schedule, agreed to

24 vacate premises on June 1, 2015, and provided the identification information of the additional
25
occupants who refused to vacate. At no time has Ms. in any concealed herself or
26
avoided service. In fact the opposite is true.
27

28
DEFENDANT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; SUPPORTING
MEMORANDUM; DEFENDAN DECLARATION (BY SPECIAL APPEARANCE); - 3
 1 In spite of this, the Plaintiffs filed, in Ex Parte, an Application for Service by Posting. A
2
predicate to an Application for Posting is that:
3

4 415.15(a) A summons in an action for unlawful detainer of real property may be served
by posting if upon affidavit it appears to the satisfaction of the court in which the action
5 is pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in any
6 manner specified in this article other than publication

8 The plain language of the statute requires an affirmative showing that reasonable
9
diligence to Serve Ms. must FIRST be made. As demonstrated by the declaration of
10
Ms. and aw will be shown by all admissible evidence at the hearing on this motion,
11
Ms. has actually been very forthcoming with the plaintiffs agent and has been in
12

13 consistent and constant contact with that agent. (On-Site Manager.) The problem for the Plaintiff

14 is the absolute lack of communication between the On Site Manager, the Property Manager, Mr.
15
Lawrence (plaintiff) and the plaintiffs counsel. Because of a fundamental breakdown in their
16
exchange of communication, the left hand has failed to tell the right hand that Ms. has
17
not avoided service, the opposite is true.
18

19
Equally so, Plaintiffs due diligence attempts to serve cannot be based solely upon the
20
actions of their process server. The plain language requires a showing that the plaintiff cannot be
21

22
served with reasonable diligence. The plaintiff seems to rely on the actions of only ONE

23 process server, and omit the plaintiffs agent having actual contact with Ms. at all time
24 prior to and after the filing of this action. Thus, reasonable diligence is not satisfied.
25

26 In an uncontested proceeding, a court may not enter a final judgment depriving a party of

27 property unless there has been some form of notice to the party and a hearing." (County of
28
DEFENDANT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; SUPPORTING
MEMORANDUM; DEFENDAN DECLARATION (BY SPECIAL APPEARANCE); - 4
 1 Ventura v. Tillett, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 112, 183 Cal.Rptr. 741.) Process that is mere
2
gesture is not due process. To satisfy due process, notice must be such as is reasonably calculated
3
to reach interested parties. (Mullane v. Central Hanover B. & T. Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 315,
4
318, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865.) There was no notice reasonably calculated to inform interested
5

6 parties, particularly appellant, of the action under the circumstances reflected by this record.

7 Given that the service was ineffective, the resulting judgment is invalid and vulnerable to
8
collateral attack. (Donel, Inc. v. Badalian (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 327, 334, 150 Cal.Rptr. 855
9
[plaintiffs single act of searching telephone directories and failure to contact attorney who had
10
acted for defendant in the past as to his whereabouts constituted a failure to exercise reasonable
11

12 diligence as a matter of law].)

13
Like Donel, the process servers attempts to effect service the bare minimal amount of
14

15 times, without having made any effort to contact the on-site manager does not constitute

16 reasonable diligence.
17
A MOTION TO QUASH IS AUTHORIZED WHEN A DEFENDANT HAS NOT BEEN
18
PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
19
California CCP 1167.4, in conjunction with CCP 418.10, gives authority for a motion
20
to quash in unlawful detainer proceedings. Absent proper service of summons, the court has no
21

22 jurisdiction over the party who does not voluntarily appear. See also CCP 415.45, 410.50. A

23 special appearance is not a general appearance.

24

25
As set forth above, the service by posting is predicated upon the lack of Reasonable

26 Diligence. Because there is a lack of reasonable diligence, the service is not effective. Absent
27 property service, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Defendant
28
DEFENDANT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; SUPPORTING
MEMORANDUM; DEFENDAN DECLARATION (BY SPECIAL APPEARANCE); - 5
 1 JURISDICTION IS REQUIRED FOR AN ENFORCEABLE JUDGMENT
2

3 A judgment entered without jurisdiction over the party subject to that judgment would be

4 void. (Sternbeck v Buck (1957) 148 CA2d 829.) Service of summons is a jurisdictional
5 requirement, without which the court has no jurisdiction in the action. (Chaplin v Superior Court
6
(1927) 81 CA 367; CCP 1917.) In an unlawful detainer action, it is of particular importance that
7
proper service of summons be achieved. (Greene v Municipal Court (1975) 51 CA3d 446.)
8

9
Defective service of summons is not service, and confers no jurisdiction over the party.
10
(Smith v Jones (1917) 174 C 513; Sternbeck v Buck (1957) 148 CA2d 829.) Mere knowledge of
11
the action, absent voluntary appearance by the party, is not sufficient for the court to assert its
12

13 jurisdiction over the party. (Coulston v Cooper (1966) 245 CA2d 866. See CCP 415.10

14 415.50.)
15

16 California CCP 415.10415.50 govern the methods by which a summons and

17 complaint may be served on a defendant in an unlawful detainer action. They include personal
18
delivery to the defendant (CCP 415.10); substituted service by personal delivery to home or
19
business, in the presence of or to the appropriate person there, and thereafter mailing (CCP
20
415.20); and posting and mailing under court order (CCP 415.45). Here, the posting and
21

22 mailing was predicated upon a lack of reasonable diligence. Absent any showing of substitute

23 service or personal service, there is no proper service of Ms.

24

25
PROPER SERVICE IN THIS MATTER HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED

26
As can be seen from the declaration of Ms. Holloway, attached to this motion, no personal,
27
substituted, or nail and mail service was achieved on her. In an unlawful detainer action, the
28
DEFENDANT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; SUPPORTING
MEMORANDUM; DEFENDAN DECLARATION (BY SPECIAL APPEARANCE); - 6
 1 right to proper service is a necessity, so that the defendant tenant may respond within the allotted
2
time.
3

4 In the instant case, service of the summons and complaint was not made as required by
5 statute. The summons and complaint was not personally served on defendant. There was no
6
proper service by substitution, because a copy of the summons and complaint was not mailed to
7
defendant and was not delivered to an appropriate adult. There was no service by substitution or
8

9 by posting, because plaintiff did not exercise Reasonable Diligence to obtain an order from the

10 court allowing that service.

11
CONCLUSION
12

13
Ms. has not been served in any manner provided by the California Code and is
14
therefore entitled to an order quashing service of summons in this action.
15

16
Date:
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
DEFENDANT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; SUPPORTING
MEMORANDUM; DEFENDAN DECLARATION (BY SPECIAL APPEARANCE); - 7
 1 DECLARATION OF

2
I, declare:
3

4 1. I am the defendant in the above-captioned unlawful detainer action. I do NOT reside at the premises subject to

5 this matter: . (Subject Premises) I do not have possession of the

6 subject premises. I turned over possession to plaintiffs agent on June 1, 2015.

7
2. The facts stated below are personally known to me. If called as a witness, I could and would competently
8
testify as follows.
9

10 3. I vacated the premises on or about June 1, 2015. Prior to vacating the premises, and provided the keys to the

11 premises to the on-site manager. There are parties who reside at the location, who are not named on the lawsuit.

12 One, Mr. Flores, has filed a Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession. I am the only named defendant in this

13 matter. At all time prior to vacating the premises, the on site manager and I have been in constant and continuous

14 communication. They had my cell phone number and my email address.

15
4. At all times in this matter, I have been in constant and consistent communication with the on-site property
16
manager, and plaintiffs counsel. We agreed to a payment plan to repay for one months of rent which became due on
17
or about May 1, 2015. I provided the name of the unnamed tenant (Mr. Flores) to the on-site manager. The on-site
18
manager is aware of the problems I have had with regaining possession of my property because of the actions of Mr.
19
At one point, it was necessary for me to ask for police assistance because Mr. Flores would not allow me to
20
obtain possession of my property, and I feared for my safety. It should be noted, and judicial notice may be taken,
21
Mr. is a named defendant in the matter of People of the State of California v.
22
case 3 This is a gang injunction and the unnamed tenant,
23
is a named gang member subject to the injunction.
24

25 5. A summons and a complaint were never provided to me. At this point, I do not have a copy of the summons
26 and complaint. I was first notified of this action with Mr. Flores gave me the Clerks Notice that You Have Been
27 Sued.
28
DEFENDANT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; SUPPORTING
MEMORANDUM; DEFENDAN H DECLARATION (BY SPECIAL APPEARANCE); - 8
 1 6. No one attempted to serve me with the summons and complaint in person. I have not received a copy of the

2 summons and complaint in the mail, and it was not posted on my door.

3
7. I do not reside at the subject property. I have vacated the premises. The Plaintiff is personally aware that I am
4
neither in possession of the premises nor served with any notices, summons, or complaint, because I was in constant
5
communication with the property manager and informed them of the same.
6

7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct,

8 and that this declaration was executed on June 12, 2015 at Oceanside, California.

9
Dated:
10

11
June 13, 2015
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
DEFENDANT AMY HOLLOWAYS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; SUPPORTING
MEMORANDUM; DEFENDAN HOLLOWAYS DECLARATION (BY SPECIAL APPEARANCE); - 9