Tandy Corp. v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. App. 3d 911 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). · Go Syfert
Tandy Corp. v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. App. 3d 911 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Anna Mishina Shteerman v. City and County of San Francisco, et al. (cand, 2025-11-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anna Mishina Shteerman v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.
N.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
P. 4(d). “[A] postal service return receipt does not suffice as a substitute for an executed acknowledgement of receipt of summons.” Tandy Corp. v. Superior Ct., 173 Cal. Rptr. 81, 82 (Cal. App. 1981); Quansah vy.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ottele v. Martinez
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
Ct., 117 Cal.App.3d 911, 913 (1981) (holding that 2 service by certified mail does not constitute constructive service where an acknowledgment was 3 not executed and returned pursuant to Cal. Civ.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (PC) Lamon v. McTaggart
E.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
Ct., 117 Cal. App. 3d 911, 913 (1981) (service by certified mail 22 does not constitute constructive service where acknowledgement not executed and returned 23 pursuant to Cal. Civ.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Evans v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Consequently, DMV obtained personal jurisdiction over Evans (Tandy Corp. v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 911, 913 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 81 ]) and provided him with notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise him of the pendency of the proceedings against his license so as to afford him an opportunity to be heard.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tandy Corp. v. Superior Court
Cal. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
(Tandy Corp. v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 911, 913-914 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 81 ].) On March 24, 1981, the day after this court’s decision, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and to quash the personal service obtained on February 19, on the ground that the return thereof was filed more than three years after the commencement of the action in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 581a, subdivision (a).
cited Cited "see" Jose Rodriguez v. Dairy Conveyor Corporation
C.D. Cal. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tandy Corp. v. 11\| Superior Ct., 117 Cal. App. 3d 911, 913 (1981). 12 IV.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Adam J. Tenser v. Robert Joshua Ryan
C.D. Cal. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Code § 415.30 ); see also Tandy Corp. v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. App. 3d 911, 913 (1981) (finding a postal service return receipt is not a substitute for an executed acknowledgement of receipt of summons).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
TANDY CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent; WILLIAM LEKOFF Et Al., Real Parties in Interest
Civ. 20462.
California Court of Appeal.
Mar 23, 1981.
117 Cal. App. 3d 911
1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 1609
COUNSEL Toy Coleman and John R. Toy for Petitioner. Page 913 No appearance for Respondent. Crow, Lytle, Gilwee, Donoghue, Adler Weninger and Gerald J. Adler for Real Parties in Interest.
Regan.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published

Opinion

REGAN, Acting P. J.

Petitioner, a defendant in a wrongful death action, seeks a writ of mandate to compel the grant of its motions to quash service and dismiss it from the action on the basis that service of summons and return thereof had not occurred within three years of the commencement of the action, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 581a, subdivision (a). [1]

Upon examination of the petition, the opposition, and their supporting materials, we conclude that the respondent court erred in denying the motions. Real parties attempted service under section 415.30 by mailing copies of the summons and first amended complaint, and the appropriate notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons (§ 415.30, subd. (a)), to petitioner’s agent for service in California by certified mail, return receipt requested. However, the acknowledgement was not executed and returned by the agent, hence service was not completed. (§ 415.30, subd. (c).) The postal service return receipt does not suffice as a substitute for an executed acknowledgement of receipt of summons. Similarly, service was not completed under section 415.40 inasmuch as no person outside this state was involved. Nor was service sufficient under section 415.20. In order to obtain in personam jurisdiction by a form of constructive service, there must be strict compliance with the requisite statutory procedures. (Stamps v. Superior Court (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 108, 109 [92 Cal.Rptr. 151].) Real parties have not complied with any applicable manner of service prescribed by any California statute.

Subsequent to the respondent court’s order denying petitioner’s motions to quash and dismiss (and subsequent to the expiration of the three-year period), real parties personally served petitioner. This of course was too late under section 581a, subdivision (a), unless the tardiness may be excused pursuant to the limited principles delineated in[*914] Hocharian v. Superior Court (1981) 28 Cal.3d 714 [170 Cal.Rptr. 790, 621 P.2d 829].

The petition herein was served upon real parties, who filed responsive points and authorities. This court is thus empowered to issue a peremptory writ without prior issuance of an alternative writ. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1088; Central & West Basin Water etc. Dist. v. Wong (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 191, 196 [127 Cal.Rptr. 448]; Goodenough v. Superior Court (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 692, 697 [96 Cal.Rptr. 165].)

Accordingly, let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the trial court to vacate its order denying petitioner’s motions to quash service and dismiss, and to grant said motions; unless after conducting an evidentiary hearing upon motion brought within 30 days after finality of this writ the trial court concludes that real parties’ failure to serve summons and make return thereof within the statutory period is excused under Hocharian v. Superior Court, supra, 28 Cal.3d 714.

Paras, J., and Blease, J., concurred.

The petition of real parties in interest for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 21, 1981.

1

AII further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.