Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV21280, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21280    Hearing Date: November 28, 2023    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:  Motion By Plaintiff To Serve Complaint And Summons On California Secretary Of State Re Defendant Meiju Group LLC.

The motion is granted.  Corp. C. § 1702.

On 6/29/22  XIAOCUI LUO (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against defendants alleging that, after Plaintiff’s immigration application was denied, defendants failed to refund $90,000.00 pursuant to an immigration service agreement induced by misrepresentations of defendants, causing Plaintiff to pay an attorney to obtain approval, and pursuant to a loan agreement, Defendant ZHANG repaid $244,000, still leaving a $456,000 balance due to Plaintiff.

The causes of action are:

1. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 22440, ET. SEQ.;

2. INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION;

3. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION;

4. REFORMATION OF CONTRACT UNDER CIVIL CODE SECTION 3399 BASED UPON MUTUAL MISTAKE;

5. REFORMATION OF CONTRACT UNDER CIVIL CODE SECTION 3399 BASED UPON UNILATERAL MISTAKE;

6. BREACH OF CONTRACT;  and

7. UNJUST ENRICHMENT.

 Plaintiff moves for an order that the Secretary of State of California accept service on behalf of Defendant MEIJU GROUP LLC, on bases including that, according to the process server, Defendant’s business appears to be closed and out of business, with nobody around, and no other possible lead exists to try to serve the registered agent of Meiju Group LLC .  No opposition has been filed to the motion.

 “The court order must be based upon a factual showing (by declaration) that process cannot be served with reasonable diligence upon (i) the corporation's designated agent (i.e., because the agent resigned and was not replaced or cannot be found at the designated address or if no agent was appointed); and (ii) the corporation by any other authorized method. [Corps.C. § 1702(a)].”  Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial  (The Rutter Group 2023)  § 4:149.

Here, the Court finds that the motion sufficiently shows that Defendant MEIJU GROUP LLC cannot be served with reasonable diligence, because the designated agent cannot be found at the designated address and there is no other authorized method of service available. 

Therefore, the motion is granted.