PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Service: Process & Papers
......Attacking Service
 29 Cards On This Topic:
  • D may serve and file notice of motion to quash service of summons for lack of ct’s jurisdiction over person.
  • Challenging complaint’s sufficiency by motion to quash only approved in unlawful detainer, where demurrer not available.
  • Motion to quash extends D’s time to answer or demur.
  • Time limits for filing.
  • Court-ordered alternative service under Rule 4 (f)(3) is one means among several enabling service of process on international D; each method, including email, proper in circumstances.
  • Parties did not have to comply with the Hague Service Convention where they agreed to waive formal service of process under CA law in favor of FedEx or similar courier.
  • A party moving to quash a subpoena under CCP §1987.2(c) is a prevailing party for purposes of an award of attorneys fees even where the subpoena was voluntarily withdrawn before it was ruled on.
  • The Hague Service Convention does not allow Chinese citizens to be served by mail, nor does it allow parties to contract to their own terms of service.
  • Motion to quash should have been granted under CCP §418.10(e) where movant filed concurrent and later motions–"no act" constituted an appearance because proceedings on the motion to quash had not been finally decided adversely to movant.
  • Order denying motion to expunge lis pendens improper where the lis pendens was completely void and subject to expungement because service was improper, and no undue delay in seeking expungement occurred.
  • Law firm's motion to quash in trust case properly granted where P named firm as Doe D under CCP §474 even though he had known firm's identity and the facts re liability when original petition was filed.
  • Motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction affirmed–absent substantial nexus between AR insurer's CA activities and CA lawsuit, personal jurisdiction over insurer for property damage in AR did not comport with DP.
  • Trial court may impose sanctions under CCP §1987.2 against litigant continuing to pursue motion to quash that, though legitimately filed, should have been more promptly withdrawn when rendered unnecessary by subpoena's amendment.
  • Based on parties' course of dealing with loan agrmts, during which D expressly waived tribal sovereign immunity and allowed court resolution of loan disputes, trial court erred in granting motion to quash service of summons.
  • Error to deny D's motion to quash where proof of personal service was untruthful and P did not carry its burden of proving the facts requisite to an effective service.
  • Probationary teacher may not assert failure of service when s/he avoids service where it reasonably can be inferred s/he did so with prior knowledge of non-retention decision.
  • Order denying motion to quash not appealable where the party contesting jurisdiction enters a general appearance and litigates the merits.
  • As D was properly represented by attorney licensed to practice law in CA, trial court did not err in considering motion to quash on merits; no authority for notion that attorney's MO firm had to, or could, register pro hac vice.
  • Grant of tenant's motion to quash reversed where Proposition G superseded Bierman Amendment to SF Admin. Code "owner-move-in provision" and owner only required to have 25% interest to evict.
  • As Hague Service Convention does authorize service of process by mail, motion to quash such service erroneously granted.
  • Service of writ petition did not meet Gov. Code §65009 (c) 90 day SOL requirements where service fell on 91st day.
  • Sultan of Brunei's relatives did not qualify as "foreign states" or instruments thereof in order to require service according to reqs of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
  • Independent trucker driving truck in and out of state on continuous basis provided sufficient nexus b/t cause of action and activities for limited, but not general jurisdiction.
  • By filing opposition to SJ motion, appearing and arguing at hearing, never requesting continuance nor claiming prejudice, P waived claims of inadequate notice or service.
  • Trial court has no jurisdiction to reconsider ruling granting motion to quash service of process, when motion brought before judgment entered, but ruling made after judgment.
  • Motion to quash service of amended complaint naming GM for Doe D and adding product liability claim denied where P not aware of any design defect when first complaint filed.
  • Cases attacking service.
  • Motion to dismiss.
  • Dismissal for delay in prosecution by failure to serve and return summons.


    •