Barkett, et al. v. Sentosa Properties LLC, et al.

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING Defendants' Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/24/2014. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM BARKETT, et al.
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15

v.
SENTOSA PROPERTIES, LLC, et al.
Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01698 - LJO - JLT
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND
COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Prior to the removal of the action, defendants Arnold Huang, Elizabeth Huang and Eugene

18

Wong moved to quash service of Plaintiffs’ Summons and Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

19

(Doc. 1-4 at 38.) Since the action was removed from Kern County Superior Court to the District Court

20

on October 29, 2014, whether the state court has jurisdiction over the defendants is now a moot issue.

21

According to the Ninth Circuit, “The state court process becomes null and void on the date the

22

action is removed to the federal court.” Beecher v. Wallace, 381 F.2d 372, 373 (1967). Moreover,

23

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1448, in all removed cases “in which any one or more of the defendants has not

24

been served with process or in which the service has not been perfected prior to removal, or in which

25

process served proves to be defective, such process or service may be completed or new process issued

26

in the same manner as in cases originally filed in such district court.” Consequently, any defect in

27

service may be cured following the removal of an action when a defendant “has not been served at all

28

with state process.” Beecher, 381 F.2d at 373.
1

1

Because the state court service is “null and void,” and the issue of whether the state of

2

California had personal jurisdiction1 over the defendants is moot, Defendants’ motion to quash is

3

DENIED.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 24, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The motion filed in Kern County Superior Court framed the issues. Following their removal of this action to
this Court, the defendants took the position in their reply brief that the District Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the
defendants. Submission of arguments or evidence for the first time upon reply is improper because it unfairly deprives the
non-movant of an opportunity to respond. See Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996). To the extent that
the defendants challenge this court’s jurisdiction, they may file a new motion.

2