Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV36255, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36255    Hearing Date: February 1, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff Carlos Marroquin (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Bladamir Zamora, Elvia Juarez, Francisco Loya, Leticia Loya, and Does 1 to 25 for strict liability, premises liability, and negligence surrounding a dog bite.

On August 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendant Francisco Loya (“Loya”) by substitute service, on July 18, 2023 at 14608 Chatsworth Dr. Mission Hills, California.

Loya now moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, arguing he did not receive service, and as such, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

“A defendant . . . may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes:¿ (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. . . .”¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a).)¿The motion must be filed on or before the last day on which the defendant must plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow. (Id.)

“[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.]”¿(Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.)¿“[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper” but only if it “complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.”¿(Id. at 1441-42.) ¿On a motion to quash service of summons, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the prima facie facts entitling the court to assume jurisdiction, including whether service was in compliance with statutory requirements. (Lebel v Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160.) A court may rely upon the verified declarations of the parties and other competent witnesses. (Buchanan v. Soto (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1362.) “A court lacks jurisdiction over a party if there has not been proper service of process.”¿(Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.)

If the summons and complaint cannot be delivered personally with reasonable diligence, a plaintiff may serve an individual defendant “by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address . . . , in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address . . . , at least 18 years of age, 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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)¿¿ 

DISCUSSION

Loya argues he never received a copy of the summons and complaint in this case. (Loya Decl. ¶ 4.) Additionally, the purported proof of substitute service indicates that the summons and complaint was “posted on door” and not left with a “competent member of the household . . . at least 18 years of age.” Therefore, it appears service did not comply with section 415.20, and was defective. Here, Plaintiff has the burden to show the Court has personal jurisdiction over Loya. Since Plaintiff does not oppose, he fails to meet his burden. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant Francisco Loya’s motion to quash service of the summons and complaint.

Loya to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.