1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

RAE ANN TURCER 5675 Snowflake Common Fremont, CA 94538 (510) 938-0367 (telephone #1) (510) 573-3970 (telephone #2) bjturcer@comcast.net (email) Appearing Pro Se

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA HAYWARD HALL OF JUSTICE DEUTSCHE BANK NATL TRUST CO AS TRUSTEE FOR LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-11, Plaintiff, RAE ANN TURCER; and DOES 1 to 6, inclusive, vs. Defendants.

CASE NO: HG12626767 MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Date: Time: Dept:

I FACTS

RAE ANN TURCER enters a special appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court. I, RAE ANN TURCER, am the named defendant in this matter and I reside with my husband at 5675 Snowflake Common, Fremont, CA, which premises is the subject of this action. I am informed and believe that on or about April 21st, 2012, legal documents were affixed to my front door. I declare I have never been personally served with a copy of a summons and complaint in this case, and I have never received a copy through the mail. _________________________________________________________________________ 1 Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Memorandum of Points and Authorities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit A to this motion is the Declaration of RAE ANN TURCER, which includes Summons and Complaint for this action, and 3-day Eviction Notice to Vacate, dated April 11th, 2012. At the bottom of the Summons, where it states NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served, the box is unmarked in section 5 and nowhere on this summons does it indicate how the person served was served, or the date such service took place. Additionally, there is no Proof of Service attached to the Summons and Complaint for this case; but there is, however Proof of Service for a 3-day Notice-to-Vacate dated April 14th, 2012.

II LAW

California Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CCP) section 418.10 provides a mechanism for a party wishing to contest the personal jurisdiction of a court without being deemed to have made a general appearance. That section requires filing a motion to quash service of summons. (CCP 418.10) A defendant is under no duty to respond in any way to a defectively served summons. It makes no difference that defendant had actual knowledge of the action. Such knowledge does not dispense with statutory requirements for service of summons. Kappel v. Bartlet, 200 C.A.3d 1457, 1457, (2nd DCA, 1988) A party cannot be properly joined unless served with the summons and complaint; notice does not substitute for proper service. Until statutory requirements are satisfied, the court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant. Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg, 53 Cal.App.4th 801 (2nd DCA, 1997) CCP section 412.30 provides: In an action against a corporation or an unincorporated association (including a partnership), the copy of summons that is served shall contain a notice stating in substance: To the person served: You are hereby served in the within action (or special proceeding) on behalf of the unincorporated association or partnership, such as the partnership created by marriage between husband and wife, as a person upon whom a copy of the summons and of the complaint may be delivered to effect service on said party under the provisions of (here state the provisions of Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10) of the Code of Civil Procedure). If service is also made on such person as an individual, the notice shall also indicate that service is being made on such person as an individual as well as on behalf of the corporation or the incorporated association.

_________________________________________________________________________ 2 Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Memorandum of Points and Authorities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

If such notice does not appear on the copy of the summons served, no default may be taken against such corporation or unincorporated association or against such person individually, as the case may be. III ARGUMENT

CCP Section 412.30 applies to the Service of Summons for Corporations and Unincorporated Associations (or Partnerships). Both are entitled to its equal protection and both require a date and time of service be stated on a Summons. As partnerships can be both formal and informal and not be in any written form, they still fall under the provisions of CCP 412.30 regarding Service of Summons. Marriage is a partnership, as is a civil union, and prior to the law providing for civil unions, the courts treated partners living together as a partnership. Why should one form of partnership get statutory protection greater than any other? The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in relevant part no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Defendants marriage is an unincorporated partnership, and as such falls under the provisions of CCP 412.30, which requires a time and date be stated on summons when Service of Summons takes place. Nowhere on the face of said Summons is there a time or date written showing proper Service to by the Plaintiff, or their Attorney or the Process Server they hired. Defendant, RAE ANN TURCER has not been properly served process. CCP 412.30 has not been complied with, and as such, the motion to quash must be granted on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over the Defendant and the case be dismissed.

July 4, 2012 RAE ANN TURCER

_________________________________________________________________________ 3 Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Memorandum of Points and Authorities