I will apologize for my absence at another time. But I had to post the news of this gift we received today from the California Supreme Court.
Cal Supremes held that a CCP section 98 declarant must be subject to actual personal service at the address given, and that the requirement is not satisfied by the defendant/defense counsel agreeing to accept service of a subpoena at that address.
The case is Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Associates http://www.courts.ca.gov/
A HUGE THANKS to @Harry Seaward for pinning this post! Everyone in California thanks you!! 🥳
And, of course, huge thank you to @calawyer!
California peeps -- remember:
No more arguing and ambiguity -- The Supreme Court of California has said that THE AFFIANT HAS TO BE SERVED the SUBPOENA PERSONALLY ... PERIOD.
Modify ALL your documents with this new ruling!
Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. S242799, 2019 WL 641517, *12 (Cal. Feb. 15, 2019)
For anyone in