How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Joseph Your Own Question
Joseph, Lawyer
Category: California Employment Law
Satisfied Customers: 5299
Experience:  Extensive experience representing employees and management
Type Your California Employment Law Question Here...
Joseph is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I currently am being sued in LA County, California. Both the

This answer was rated:

I currently am being sued in LA County, California. Both the complaint and a "NOTICE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE" letter were sent via USPS to my previous address where I no longer live. I have USPS forwarding my mail to my current address. As such, the letters were eventually received at my current address.

The letters were not sent certified mail.

One of the letters is a "PROOF OF SERVICE" saying that I was served via mail. According to the letter, they have made no other attempts, such as in-person, fax, fedex, etc.

Is this a valid attempt to serve me?

My name isXXXXX am a licensed attorney, and my goal is to provide you with excellent service today.

Yes, unfortunately, this would qualify as a valid attempt to serve you. California does allow service via United States mail, and doesn't require that the mail be sent certified or delivery confirmation.

Since this was sent to your former address and was forwarded to you, it's likely that this was the last known address that the person who sued you had, and they didn't intentionally sent the notice to an address where you don't currently live in order to receive a default judgment.

You can see here that service of process can be made through mail, and isn't required to be made by other alternative means. (On the second page under United States mail).

I hope the above information is helpful, although I realize it is not what you wanted to hear. I sincerely XXXXX XXXXX had better news to give you, but I hope you appreciate an honest and direct answer to your question. It would be unprofessional of me and unfair to you to provide you with anything less.

Please let me know if you have any follow up or clarifying questions as I want to ensure that you are completely satisfied with my service. Please contact me first if you are contemplating leaving me a negative rating, as I’ll be happy to continue to address your concerns until you are completely satisfied with my service.

If not, please remember to rate my answer positively so I get credit for my work. (It doesn’t cost you anything extra and is necessary even though you’ve made a deposit). Please also rate me highly (9-10) when you receive your customer satisfaction survey.

Thanks and best of luck!

Customer: replied 3 years ago.

Thanks for the reply. Can you point me to a place where I can read about the rules and procedures about filing a complaint? Is it part of the CA Civil Code?

I'm not sure what you mean by filing a complaint. You can object that the service is defective and your case should be dismissed on that basis.

Such a process is outlined in this case:

Honda Motor Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1043

This is based on objections to jurisdiction due to defective service of process here in California Civil Procedure Code Section 418.1:
The pertinent case holding is here:

Plaintiff argues that it is ridiculous, wasteful and time consuming to reverse the trial court just to force plaintiff to go through the motions of a service under the convention, when there is no question but that Honda has notice of the action, its attorneys stand ready to defend it, and no practical aim can be accomplished by quashing the service. However, plaintiff cites no authority permitting a California court to authorize an action to go forward upon an invalid service of process. The fact that the person served "got the word" is irrelevant. (See In re Morelli (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 819, 837 [91 Cal.Rptr. 72]; In re Abrams, supra, 108 Cal. App.3d at pp. 693-694.) (3) "Mere knowledge of the action is not a substitute for service, nor does it raise any estoppel to contest the validity of service." (108 Cal. App.3d at p. 693, citations omitted.) "[O]ur adherence to the law is required if we are ever to instill respect for it." (Id. at p. 695.) The Abrams court felt it could not rewrite the work of the California Legislature; how much less are we able to rewrite a federal treaty.
Joseph and other California Employment Law Specialists are ready to help you

Related California Employment Law Questions