Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV15025, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15025    Hearing Date: June 7, 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 May 5, 2022, Plaintiff Jose Angel Manaiza, Jr. (“Plaintiff” in pro per) filed a complaint against “AMLI” seemingly for terminating a tenancy.   

Defendant PPF AMLI 4242 Via Marina, LLC (“Defendant”) now moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, arguing service was defective and as such, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant. No opposition has been filed.

The proof of service shows this motion was served on Plaintiff at an address at “94611 Charleville Blvd.” According to Plaintiff’s Notice of Change of Address filed on May 2, 2023, his address is at “9461 Charleville Blvd.”  A moving party’s failure to serve the notice of motion and moving papers on a non-moving party violates the basic principles of procedural due process under the federal and state constitutions – notice and an opportunity to be heard.¿ (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 428 [minimum due process requires notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case]; Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612 [due process principles require reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard].) The Court further notes that an amended complaint was filed on May 20, 2024.

Therefore, the Court denies the motion as procedurally defective for failure to provide Plaintiff’s correct address in the proof of service.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant PPF AMLI 4242 Via Marina, LLC’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint.

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