Jump to content

TEMPLATE NEEDED: LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT - MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS


Recommended Posts

Plaintiff served me by dropping off a copy of the Summons & Complaint at my mail service and NOT at my residence or place of business. The individual served did not know what the package was and was NOT an authorized representative for service of process. I want to file a Motion to Quash Service of Summons.

Does anyone have an example or a template? Do I need to schedule a hearing? I'm also trying to change the venue. Plaintiff filed the case up in Chatsworth which is 30 minute drive away IF I HAD RELIABLE TRANSPORTATION, which I do not. I live in Santa Monica and am trying to get the case moved to the Santa Monica Courthouse.

My sole income is SSI. I rely on SNAP (food stamps) and Section 8 housing. I am permanently disabled, retired, and will be 65 years old in a couple of months. I have NO collectible assets and was advised by attorneys NOT to file bankruptcy, as i have nothing to collect. Plaintiff is pursuing this action as an act of harassment, and I would like to file a Cross-Complaint for Unfair Debt Collection Practices/Violation of the Rosenthal Act. Can anyone help me stop this harassment?

Thanking you in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would file the change of venue. Seems you have access to what  was served online.  Even if you succeed on getting service quashed they will just serve you at home or through mail and newspaper post.  Once you file the change of venue it will specify the correct place to serve you. All the service is to tell court that you have been inform of lawsuit which you have.  

"Plaintiff is pursuing this action as an act of harassment,"  No harassment for filing suit on owed debt. 

I would like to file a Cross-Complaint for Unfair Debt Collection Practices/Violation of the Rosenthal Act.  You can file a counterclaim in the debt suit but you will have a hard time proving intent on plaintiff part.

Are you dealing with JDB or OC? 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, HomelessInCalifornia said:

The individual served did not know what the package was and was NOT an authorized representative for service of process

What rule says a person who serves a summons and complaint must be an authorized representative for service of process?  According to CCP 414.10:

ARTICLE 2. Persons Who May Serve Summons

414.10.

A summons may be served by any person who is at least 18 years of age and not a party to the action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

CCP 414.10 addresses who may serve a summons. It does not address who may be served. Service on an individual is covered under CCP 414.10-414.95. In the case of an individual, a summons may be served via substitute service at the individual's "home or office". There is nothing saying at a mail service is okay or that the summons may be delivered to any random person at that mail service. I have authorized no one to be my "authorized agent". Service was never attempted at my home and I have no office.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2024 at 8:57 PM, Bulldoger said:

I would file the change of venue. Seems you have access to what  was served online.  Even if you succeed on getting service quashed they will just serve you at home or through mail and newspaper post.  Once you file the change of venue it will specify the correct place to serve you. All the service is to tell court that you have been inform of lawsuit which you have.  

"Plaintiff is pursuing this action as an act of harassment,"  No harassment for filing suit on owed debt. 

I would like to file a Cross-Complaint for Unfair Debt Collection Practices/Violation of the Rosenthal Act.  You can file a counterclaim in the debt suit but you will have a hard time proving intent on plaintiff part.

Are you dealing with JDB or OC? 

 

Thanks. Unfortunately, the court rejected my Motion for Change of Venue. Apparently, I have to schedule a hearing first. A hearing which I cannot attend for the same reason that I tried to file the Motion for Change of Venue--i.e., I live 30+ minutes drive away from the court, lack reliable transportation to get me to the court, and cannot afford Uber/Lyft/bus/whatever.

Isn't it harassment to continue to pursue a lawsuit for collection when you know that there is zero chance to collect? That is, when you have been given documented proof that the defendant has no collectible assets? No income other than SSI? No property ownership? No titles of any kind other than to a car currently at Kelly Blue Book value of $2650? No jewelry? Nothing at all? If the purpose of the lawsuit is not to collect on the debt, then what is the lawsuit's purpose other than harassment? (This would be the basis of my argument for the proposed Cross-Complaint. And/or, I can see argument for charging "Frivolous Complaint", but I don't know if that would come in the form of a Motion to Quash or as a cause of action in a Cross-Complaint.)

Apparently, the Cross-Complaint had to be filed with the Answer, so now the question is moot. I would have to file a separate Complaint, and I lack the funds for that (as well as any kind of cross-complaint template).

Thanks again. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, HomelessInCalifornia said:

Isn't it harassment to continue to pursue a lawsuit for collection when you know that there is zero chance to collect?

No.  While a person may be “judgment proof” at the time a judgment is issued, it doesn’t mean they will be judgment proof forever.  That’s why judgments in most states are enforceable for at least 10 years and, in some of those states, can be renewed for another 10 years.  In Ca, judgments are for 10 years and can be renewed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, HomelessInCalifornia said:

Isn't it harassment to continue to pursue a lawsuit for collection when you know that there is zero chance to collect?

No.  It is their legal right to sue even in California.  While you may have no assets now must judgments are good for 10 or more year if not forever and you could win the lottery or have some other windfall that allows them to collect down the road like @BV80said.  Your argument/defense that attempting to collect on a debt you legitimately owe is harassment when you have no assets could also lead them to make a claim of fraud against you for taking out credit when you knew you did not have the means to repay the obligation.  I realize in your state it is very popular to run debt up and claim it was needed to "survive" and it shouldn't matter that the creditor gets stiffed on the money owed but legally that doesn't fly even in California.  If your debt problems are that bad then filing a no asset Chapter 7 bankruptcy might be in order.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/13/2024 at 4:47 PM, BV80 said:

No.  While a person may be “judgment proof” at the time a judgment is issued, it doesn’t mean they will be judgment proof forever.  That’s why judgments in most states are enforceable for at least 10 years and, in some of those states, can be renewed for another 10 years.  In Ca, judgments are for 10 years and can be renewed.

Thank you. As plaintiff knows, I'm 65 years old, disabled, retired, unable to work, with a sole income of SSI and no collectible assets. Literally, the only way I will ever not be "judgment proof" is if I win the lottery. The lawsuit is frivolous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. I'm not in the least bit worried about a "fraud" complaint. I had an account in solid standing for over 15 years with payments always on time and more than the minimum. When my rent increased by 43% and my food subsidy dropped from $270/month to $23/month and my utilities assistance expired and my car broke down and my mother went into the hospital--all of which took place within a 10 day period--I stopped making payments. My finances changed. I didn't.

My sole income now is SSI. I'm 65 years old, retired, disabled, unable to work, and literally have no collectible assets.

I still believe this lawsuit is--at this point--an act of harassment. There is NOTHING to be gained by it. Now or ever.  Two other creditors decided the same thing. It's just this third creditor that is being a blind idiot. I would really love to put this to a legal test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.