Jul 19, 2019
Wednesday, July 17, 2019, 2:00 p.m.
Courtroom 19 – Hon. Gary Nadler
3055 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa
CourtCall is available for all Law & Motion appearances, EXCEPT motions for claims of exemption which are mandatory appearances.   Please contact CourtCall directly at (888) 882-6878.
The following tentative rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard. If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, YOU MUST notify the Court by telephone at (707) 521-6602, and all other opposing parties of your intent to appear by 4:00 p.m. Tuesday, July 16, 2019. Parties in motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.
PLEASE NOTE: The Court WILL provide a Court Reporter for this calendar. If there are any concerns, please contact the Court at the number provided above.

 1.        MCV-247135, Lapierre v. Medeiros

            Respondent, T&G Medeiros Inc., a California corporation, specially appears and moves for an order quashing Plaintiff’s purported service of Summons and Complaint.
The subject complaint names Tony Medeiros and Wackers and Sons as defendants. Movant T&G Medeiros Inc. is not named as a party.
Defendant argues that it was not properly served, as the service of summons was left at the office of attorney Sheri Chlebowski—who denies being “attorney of record” for T&G, and denies being an agent for service of process.
Plaintiff responds, arguing that the proof of service clearly demonstrates that Ms. Chlebowski was personally served, and that the complaint was mailed to her address. Further, Plaintiff notes that Ms. Chlebowski appeared at a case management conference on behalf of T&G, and moved to dismiss the action.
The Court notes that the Defendants, as named in the caption of the Complaint, and as served, are Mr. Tony Medeiros and Wackers and Sons—there is no mention of T&G in the Complaint. Thus, without explanation, it is difficult to discern exactly how T&G has standing to move to quash service of summons on either Mr. Medeiros or Wackers and Sons.
Moreover, on June 4, 2019, the clerk of court entered default against Defendants Mr. Medeiros and Wackers and Sons. Even if it is assumed that T&G and the Defendants are one in the same, the default of Defendants puts them “out of court.” As such, Defendants have no right to participate in the proceedings until either its default is set aside, or a default judgment is entered. (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385-386.) Indeed, entry of default deprives the court of jurisdiction to consider any motion other than a motion for relief from default. (W.A. Rose Co. v. Mun.Ct. (FitzSimmons) (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 71, 72.)
Accordingly, the Court is without jurisdiction to rule on the motion to quash, as the named Defendants are currently in default.

2.        SCV-264266, GTE Mobilnet of California v. Octowired Systems

This motion was dropped at request of moving party.
*This is the end of the Tentative Rulings* 
© 2019 Superior Court of Sonoma County