Midland Credit Management, Inc. v. Carolina Pizarro

Case Number

25CV03038

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 01/26/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Tentative Ruling

Midland Credit Management, Inc. v. Carolina Pizarro       

Case No. 25CV03038

           

Hearing Date: January 26, 2026                                                        

HEARING:              Motion to Quash Service of Summons

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Midland Credit Management, Inc.: Robert K. Hanna, Junqiao Xiao, Hyo Jin Julia Jung, Michael D. Kahn

                                    For Defendant Carolina Pizarro: Self Represented

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of defendant Carolina Pizarro to quash service of summons is continued to March 9, 2026. On or before February 5, 2026, defendant shall serve on plaintiff the motion to quash, together with notice of this continuance of the hearing on that motion, and shall file proof of such service with the court on or before February 11, 2026. The Clerk of the Court is directed to give notice of this ruling.

Background:

On May 15, 2025, plaintiff Midland Credit Management, Inc., filed its original complaint against defendant Carolina Pizarro, alleging one cause of action for breach of contract. The complaint arises from an alleged breach by defendant Pizarro of a credit account presently owned by plaintiff.

On June 4, 2025, plaintiff filed a proof of service of the summons which states that defendant Pizarro was served with The summons and complaint on May 31, 2025, by substituted service delivered to a residential address in Santa Barbara, California, and thereafter by mail to that same address. (See June 4, 2025, Proof of Service, ¶¶ 5(b)(2) & (4)-(5).)

On July 14, 2025, defendant Pizarro, who is self-represented, filed a motion to quash service of the summons. That motion was calendared for a hearing on October 20, 2025. When this matter was on calendar on October 20, the court adopted its tentative ruling without the appearance of any party:

“On May 15, 2025, plaintiff Midland Credit Management Inc. filed its original complaint against defendant Carolina Pizarro asserting one cause of action for breach of contract. On June 4, 2025, plaintiff filed a proof of service of the summons which states that defendant Pizarro was served by substituted service at an address in Santa Barbara. On July 14, 2025, defendant Pizarro, self-represented, filed a motion to quash service of summons on the grounds that she does not now, and has not since 2020, lived at the address where she was purportedly served. No proof of service of the motion to quash is attached to the motion or has been filed with the court; no opposition or other response has been filed to the motion by plaintiff. The hearing on the motion will be continued to December 8, 2025. On or before November 3, 2025, defendant Pizarro shall serve the motion to quash, together with notice of this continuance of the hearing on the motion, on plaintiff. Plaintiff shall file proof of such service with the court on or before November 10, 2025.”

On December 8, 2025, the date of the continued hearing on defendant Pizarro’s motion to quash, the court adopted its tentative ruling with the appearance of plaintiff’s counsel only, which sets forth the ruling described above and the following:

“Nothing has been filed in this matter by any party since the October 20 hearing.

“The hearing on the motion will be continued to January 26, 2026. On or before December 22, 2025, defendant Pizarro shall serve on plaintiff the motion to quash, together with notice of this continuance of the hearing on the motion. Plaintiff shall file proof of such service with the court on or before December 29, 2025. The Clerk of the Court shall give notice of this ruling.”

Court records reflect that proof of service of the motion to quash and notice of the continuance of the hearing on that motion was not filed by the deadline prescribed in the court’s December 8 ruling set forth above. Further, plaintiff has not filed any response to the motion to quash of defendant.

For all reasons discussed above, the hearing on the motion to quash will be further continued to March 9, 2026. On or before February 5, 2026, defendant Pizarro shall serve on plaintiff the motion to quash, together with notice of this continuance of the hearing on that motion, and shall file proof of such service with the court on or before February 11, 2026. The court further notes that if the motion to quash of defendant Pizarro is not served by February 5, and if proof of such service is not filed by February 11 as required herein, that motion will be taken off calendar.

The Clerk of the Court shall give notice of this ruling.