MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
Mort Smith (hereinafter “Defendant”) has been served by Rick Sanchez (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) in an action of unlawful detainer pursuant to West’s Ann.Cal.C.C.P. §1161. Defendant declares, as a special appearance in support of a motion to quash service of summons on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction see. Defendant was never properly served with the summons and complaint in this action.
As of the date of execution of this declaration, Defendant has never properly been served with the summons and complaint in this action. Defendant was served the summons in this case by a party to this action. Plaintiff failed to conform with constitutional due process by failing to state the grounds …show more content…
Proc., § 418.10. “When a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction under the due process clause…” U.S. Const. Amend. 14. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 783. Plaintiff reasons in his complaint that “this court can totally hear this case… the house is located on earth.” Plaintiff has failed to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction because mere presence on this planet has never been enough to confer personal jurisdiction. To exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant in this instance, would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Therefore, Plaintiffs service of summons should be quashed for lack of personal …show more content…
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO NAME DEFENDANT ON THE COMPLAINT. “A fundamental requirement of due process of law… is notice reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action… notice must be of such nature that it reasonably conveys the required information.” U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306. Plaintiff stated the name of two different defendants in his service on Defendant. On the summons and civil cover sheet, Plaintiff names Defendant. However, on the complaint, Plaintiff names “Mort Goldman” as the defendant. Plaintiff failed to convey required information, and appraise the notice of interested parties by not specifically naming a defendant. Therefore, Mullane requires the Court quash Plaintiff’s service of summons for failing to provide required information.
CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s service on Defendant must be quashed because Plaintiff has failed to provide reasonably calculated notice and confer proper service. Additionally, plaintiff has failed to meet the notice element to quit or pay rent required in an unlawful
INTRODUCTION
Mort Smith (hereinafter “Defendant”) has been served by Rick Sanchez (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) in an action of unlawful detainer pursuant to West’s Ann.Cal.C.C.P. §1161. Defendant declares, as a special appearance in support of a motion to quash service of summons on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction see. Defendant was never properly served with the summons and complaint in this action.
As of the date of execution of this declaration, Defendant has never properly been served with the summons and complaint in this action. Defendant was served the summons in this case by a party to this action. Plaintiff failed to conform with constitutional due process by failing to state the grounds …show more content…
Proc., § 418.10. “When a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction under the due process clause…” U.S. Const. Amend. 14. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 783. Plaintiff reasons in his complaint that “this court can totally hear this case… the house is located on earth.” Plaintiff has failed to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction because mere presence on this planet has never been enough to confer personal jurisdiction. To exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant in this instance, would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Therefore, Plaintiffs service of summons should be quashed for lack of personal …show more content…
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO NAME DEFENDANT ON THE COMPLAINT. “A fundamental requirement of due process of law… is notice reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action… notice must be of such nature that it reasonably conveys the required information.” U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306. Plaintiff stated the name of two different defendants in his service on Defendant. On the summons and civil cover sheet, Plaintiff names Defendant. However, on the complaint, Plaintiff names “Mort Goldman” as the defendant. Plaintiff failed to convey required information, and appraise the notice of interested parties by not specifically naming a defendant. Therefore, Mullane requires the Court quash Plaintiff’s service of summons for failing to provide required information.
CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s service on Defendant must be quashed because Plaintiff has failed to provide reasonably calculated notice and confer proper service. Additionally, plaintiff has failed to meet the notice element to quit or pay rent required in an unlawful