1

Filed 7/17/15 Schenck v. Brown CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

RYKER WILLIAM SCHENCK,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN II,

Defendant and Respondent.

 A141792, A142803

 (Mendocino County

 Super. Ct. No. SCUKCVPT1363262)

In these consolidated appeals, Ryker William Schenck (Schenck) seeks review of 

an order quashing service of his petition, an order denying his motion for reconsideration, 

and an order denying entry of a default and default judgment. Having fully considered 

Schenck’s submissions to this court, we will affirm the orders quashing service and 

denying reconsideration, and dismiss the appeal as to his challenge to the order denying 

entry of default and default judgment.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Schenck’s Petition in the Trial Court

On December 13, 2013, Schenck commenced the underlying proceeding in the 

Mendocino County Superior Court by filing a “Petition for Rehearing Under Rule 44” 

(Petition). The Petition, viewed by the court and the parties as a complaint, purported to 

assert numerous causes of action against individuals and governmental entities, including 

allegations that the Marin County Superior Court, the governor, and others violated his 

civil rights and due process rights; the defendants in a prior lawsuit defaulted; the state 
2

and law enforcement retaliated against him and his family; a police officer kidnapped and 

raped his wife; he did not receive compensation from the victims compensation board; 

the state contractors board revoked his contractor’s license; a police officer committed 

extortion; and other matters. 

On January 30, 2014, Schenck filed a proof of service indicating that a process 

server had served “CA. Dept. of Corrections, Jeffrey Beard” by substituted service on 

January 24, 2014, by leaving copies of specified documents with an adult at Beard’s 

business address (1515 S Street, Sacramento, CA) and mailing copies of the documents 

to the address on that same date. The proof of service stated that the documents so served 

were “Petition for Rehearing Under Rule 44, Petitioners Timely Request to File; Civil 

Case Cover Sheet.” The proof of service did not mention a summons. 

B. Beard’s Motion to Quash and Schenck’s Request for Entry of Defaults

On February 24, 2014, Beard filed a Motion to Quash Service of Summons. In a 

declaration supporting the motion, it was averred that a package of documents concerning 

the lawsuit was delivered to 1515 S Street for service on Beard. However, this package 

contained only the Petition, a civil case cover sheet, documents that appeared to be 

exhibits to the petition, a case management statement dated January 16, 2014, and a proof 

of service for the case management statement. 

On March 3, 2014, Schenck filed an opposition to the motion to quash, entitled 

“ ‘Special Motion to Strike’ Notice of Motion to Quash Service of Summons to Any and 

All Public Entity Employees Stated Within Suit.” Schenck argued generally that service 

was adequate, but he did not assert or show evidence that a summons was served on 

Beard. On April 3, 2014, he filed a “Response Notice of Motion to Strike ‘Reply

Supporting Defendant Beard’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons,[’]” which did not 

assert or provide evidence that a summons had been served or even issued. 

By written order filed on April 9, 2014, the trial court granted Beard’s motion to 

quash. The court stated: “Defendant J. Beard established by uncontested and a 

preponderance of evidence that he was not served with a summons in this matter. 
3

Plaintiff offered no evidence to the contrary. Defendant Beard’s motion to strike service 

is granted.” 

On April 18, 2014, Schenck requested entry of a default and default judgment as 

to 20 purported defendants, including Beard. On April 24, 2014, the court denied 

Schenck’s requests on the ground that Schenck failed to demonstrate that he properly 

served them with a copy of the summons. In denying the requests, the court noted that 

“no summons was ever issued in this matter, either at the time of the filing of the petition 

or subsequently.” The court also observed that the proofs of service did not indicate 

service of a summons. In addition, the court explained that actual notice of the lawsuit 

does not substitute for compliance with statutory service of process requirements, and 

blank summons forms were available from the court clerk. The court also noted that 

Beard was not named in the Petition as a defendant. 

On April 25, 2014, Schenck filed a notice of appeal, challenging the April 9, 2014,

order granting Beard’s motion to quash, and the “entry of default judgment” purportedly 

filed on April 24, 2014 (that is, the order denying Schenck’s requests for entry of default 

and default judgments). This commenced appeal No. A141792. 

In his notice of appeal, Schenck contended the trial judge and the deputy attorney 

general were liars and that Beard was served with the proof of service and a copy of the 

original complaint on January 24, 2014. The summons was not mentioned, however. 

The trial court issued another written order granting the motion to quash on June 

2, 2014, on the same grounds.

1

 Schenck was given notice of the entry of the order. 

 

1

The record indicates that, notwithstanding the issuance of the April 9 written 

order, the court directed Beard’s attorney to prepare a proposed formal order, giving 

Schenck the opportunity to review and approve it as to form. Schenck declined to 

approve it. (More specifically, he wrote: “You[’re] a lying sac of shit and are liable for 

your misactions under the strict duty provision. I have provided you with all document[s] 

challenging, appealing & opposing Beard[’]s motion to quash. You on the other 

than [sic] are guilty of treason and are blocking my access to the courts and violating my 

due process & other fed rights. Fuck you.”) Although Schenck’s notice of appeal was 

filed before entry of the June 2014 order, it was filed after the court’s April 2014 order, 

and both orders based the ruling on the same grounds and, indeed, include identical 
4

On June 25, 2014, Schenck filed a motion for reconsideration. He argued that the 

court could not use defective service to deny his complaint because jurisdiction does not 

depend on proof of service but on the fact service was made. 

By written order filed on June 30, 2014, the court denied Schenck’s motion for 

reconsideration on the ground that he failed to provide the required statutory notice and 

failed to file proof of service of the motion on defendants. 

Schenck filed a second notice of appeal on August 14, 2014, entitled “Motion of 

Appeal of Order Denying Reconsideration of Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Order 

Denying Entry of Judgment.” This commenced appeal No. A142803.

On October 17, 2014, we consolidated appeal Nos. A141792 and A142803. 

II. DISCUSSION

We consider Schenck’s contentions in turn.

A. Motion to Quash

1. Law

A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court. (Code Civ. 

Proc., § 411.10.) There is no dispute that Schenck’s Petition, which commenced the 

lawsuit, contained causes of action, and sought relief, is the complaint in this case. 

Except as otherwise provided by statute, however, the court has jurisdiction over a 

particular defendant only from the time that a summons—a separate document issued to 

the plaintiff by the court clerk at the plaintiff’s request—is served on the defendant as 

provided by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 412.10, 410.50, subd. (a).) The summons may 

be served by personal service or, in some circumstances (such as a prior good faith effort 

at personal service), by substituted service, in which the copies of the summons (and

complaint) are left at the party’s place of business and later mailed to that same address. 

(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 415.10, 415.20.) 

 

operative language. Schenck’s notice of appeal is therefore adequate for us to acquire 

jurisdiction over the appeal. (In re Marriage of Zimmerman (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 900, 

906.) 
5

Service of process, including the summons, is the means by which a court obtains 

jurisdiction over the defendant. (Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1457, 1464.) 

Personal jurisdiction requires compliance with the statutory requirements for service of 

process, and the defendant’s knowledge of a proceeding does not in itself confer 

jurisdiction. (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 

387 (American Express).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1) entitles a defendant to 

file a motion to quash service of the summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction; that 

is, as in this case, delivery of the complaint may be held insufficient if jurisdiction has not 

been secured by adequate service of the summons. In response to a motion to quash, the 

plaintiff has the burden of establishing the facts that demonstrate the court’s acquisition 

of personal jurisdiction over the defendant, including the facts showing effective service 

of process. (American Express, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 387.) 

An order granting a motion to quash is appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, 

subd. (a)(3).) On appeal, we assume that the affidavits favoring the prevailing party 

establish the facts stated therein and reasonable inferences from those facts, we defer to 

the trial court’s determination of any controverted facts, and we review independently the 

court’s statutory interpretations and legal conclusions. (American Express, supra, 199 

Cal.App.4th at p. 387.)

2. Analysis

In the matter before us, the trial court ruled that Beard was not served with a copy 

of the summons, and therefore the court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over him. 

Schenck fails to establish error.

The proof of service filed by Schenck claimed that Beard was served with the 

petition on January 24, 2014, by substitute service. Substitute service, however, requires 

leaving a copy of the summons, as well as the complaint, at the defendant’s usual place of 

business and sending a copy of the summons, as well as the complaint, by mail. Code of 

Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b) reads: “If a copy of the summons and 
6

complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be 

served, . . . a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at 

the person’s . . . usual place of business . . . in the presence of . . . a person apparently in 

charge of his or her office . . . who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by 

thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage 

prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and 

complaint were left.” (Italics added.) 

Here, the evidence is that the package of documents delivered to Beard did not 

include a summons, and indeed the proof of service does not even claim that it did. 

Therefore, there was no evidence of proper substitute service, and the court never 

obtained jurisdiction over Beard.

Schenck’s appellate brief (and the other documents he has submitted in this 

appeal) do not demonstrate that Beard was properly served. Schenck’s brief does not cite 

evidence that a summons was served on Beard or even issued; indeed, it does not provide 

citations to any evidence in the record at all. The brief, amounting to over 40 pages,

asserts issues of res judicata, stare decisis, retaliation, due process, a mechanics’ lien 

violation, consortium loss, rape of his wife by a police officer, and outrageous 

governmental conduct, but does not provide any legal authority holding that the summons 

would not have to be served for jurisdiction to be obtained, or any contention that a 

summons was issued or was included in the documents delivered by the process server on 

January 24, 2014. Schenck also made no mention of the summons in his notice of 

appeal, stating only that “[o]n January 24, 2014 . . . Beard [was] served with the Proof of 

service and a copy of the original complaint.” 

Schenck does not establish error in the court’s granting of the motion to quash.

B. Denial of Schenck’s Motion for Reconsideration

An order denying reconsideration is reviewable as part of an appeal from the 

underlying appealable order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (g).) However, since there 
7

was no error in the granting of Beard’s motion to quash, the record discloses no error in 

the denying of Schenck’s motion for reconsideration.

C. Denial of Schenck’s Request for Entry of Default

An order denying entry of a default or default judgment is not an appealable order. 

(Brown v. Sterling Fixture Co. (1917) 175 Cal. 563, 565.) We therefore must dismiss 

Schenck’s appeal to the extent he seeks review of the order denying his request for entry 

of default and default judgment against Beard. 

We also observe that, given the affirmed orders in this case, the record discloses 

no error in the court’s refusal to enter any default: since the court did not acquire 

personal jurisdiction over Beard, it could not enter a default against him; conversely, 

Beard had no obligation to respond to the Petition since the court never acquired 

jurisdiction over him. (See Slaughter v. Legal Process & Courier Service (1984) 162 

Cal.App.3d 1236, 1251.) For this reason, Schenck’s challenge regarding the default is 

moot.2

III. DISPOSITION

The orders granting Beard’s motion to quash and denying Schenck’s motion for 

reconsideration are affirmed. To the extent Schenck appeals from the order denying 

entry of a default and default judgment, the appeal is dismissed.

 

2 We received from Schenck a copy of a document entitled “Motion for Relief From 

Default: Supporting Memorandum; Declaration; Order and Relief,” filed herein on June 

5, 2015, and a document entitled “Illegal Malpractice, Protest of Appeal and Declaration 

of Aggrieved Plaintiff and Appellant Without Relief Asserting Abuse of Process Filed 

Under U.S.C. 1331, 1958, 1983, Courts Violated Gov. Code 72193 and PC 1475,” filed 

herein on June 29, 2015. To the extent these documents request relief from this court, the 

requests are denied.
8

NEEDHAM, J.

We concur.

SIMONS, Acting P. J.

BRUINIERS, J.

(A141792, A142803)