John Doe 1 et al vs Roy Eugene Stephenson, Jr

Case Number

23CV05242

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 01/10/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Default; Motion to Quash

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons discussed herein, defendant’s motion to quash summons and dismiss complaint is denied.

Background:

This action commenced on November 28, 2023, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiffs John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and John Doe 3 (collectively “plaintiffs”) against defendant Roy E. Stephenson (“defendant”), with a single cause of action for negligence.

As alleged in the complaint:

On September 4, 2023, plaintiffs, three teenage friends, went for a hike in Stevens Park in Santa Barbara. (Compl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs were in the San Roque creek bed, underneath a small bridge, when defendant arrived on top of the bridge and began harassing plaintiffs. (Id. at ¶ 10.) After a few minutes, defendant left. (Ibid.) Shortly thereafter, defendant’s partner went to the bridge and asked plaintiffs to move from underneath the bridge, which they did. (Id. at ¶ 11.)

Defendant suddenly returned, screaming, and brandishing a firearm. (Compl. ¶ 12.) Defendant pointed his firearm at John Doe 3’s head, fired and missed, sending plaintiffs running for their lives. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs ran out of the creek bed into the parking lot, where a bystander was already on the phone with police. (Id. at ¶ 13.)

Police arrived and arrested defendant, who was booked into jail on multiple felonies. (Compl., ¶ 14.)

Defendant was personally served with the summons, complaint, civil case cover sheet, and civil case cover sheet addendum on February 29, 2024.

Defendant failed to timely file an answer and a default prove-up hearing is scheduled for the same day as the hearing on the present motion.

Defendant filed the present motion to quash summons and dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint on December 13, 2024, arguing that the court does not have jurisdiction due to plaintiffs committing a fraud on the court.

Plaintiffs oppose the motion arguing: (1) The motion is untimely; (2) Defendant failed to serve plaintiffs with the motion; and (3) The motion lacks substantive merit.

Defendant has not filed a reply to the opposition.

Analysis:

            Timeliness

A motion to quash service of summons must be filed “on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a).)

As noted above, defendant was personally served on February 29, 2024. As such, his last day to file a responsive pleading, absent permission of the court, was Monday, April 1, 2024. The present motion was filed more than eight months late.

As the motion is untimely, it will be denied.

            Service

Written notice must be given for a motion to quash summons. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (a)(4).

The proof of service of the motion indicates that the motion was served on plaintiffs’ counsel, by mail on December 13, 2024, at 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 235, Beverly Hills, CA 90211. At the time of the filing of the complaint, that was the correct address for plaintiffs’ counsel. However, on May 6, 2024, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a notice of change of address to 7060 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 530, Los Angeles, CA 90028. Defendant was served with the notice by mail on May 6, 2024.

Service was improper and is an alternative grounds for denying defendants motion.

            Substantive Argument

Even if the motion were not denied for procedural reasons, it would be denied for substantive deficiencies.

Defendant argues that plaintiffs are attempting to commit fraud upon the court by making inconsistent court statements in defendant’s criminal case. In support, defendant provides documents that are not properly authenticated and no request for judicial notice was made. Even if the documents were properly considered, defendant’s arguments fail.

The entirety of defendant’s motion to quash service of summons is based on arguments regarding what happened on the date of the incident, and statements that have been made by plaintiffs since that date. A motion to quash is simply not the proper means to contest the allegations of the complaint or to try the merits of the case. Other than in unlawful detainer actions, a motion to quash is for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction or the sufficiency of service of process.

“The only situation in which a motion to quash service of summons has been approved as a procedure by which to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint is in unlawful detainer, where a demurrer is unavailable.” (Greener v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1028, 1036.)

The motion must be denied.