Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV16580, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16580    Hearing Date: November 19, 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 July 17, 2023, Plaintiff Cory Bouthillette (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Deeran Demanco Anderson and Does 1 to 50 for negligence related to a motor vehicle accident.

On September 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service of the summons and complaint showing they were personally served on Deeran Demanco Anderson on September 5, 2024.

Specially Appearing Defendant Deeran Demanco Anderson (“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.  

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.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 416.90 states: “[a] summons may be served on a person not otherwise specified in this article by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to such person or to a person authorized by him to receive service of process.”

DISCUSSION

Here, the proof of service of the summons and complaint states that Defendant was served on September 5, 2024 at “16206 Oaktree Ln Romulus, MI 48174-3016.” Defendant declares under penalty of perjury that this address is his mother’s address, which he does not reside at, and was not present at on the day of service. (Anderson Decl. ¶ 4-5.) He further declares he does not reside in Michigan and was not in the state of Michigan on the date of service. (Id. ¶ 7.) He asserts that the person served was his younger brother, who is a minor. (Id. ¶ 6.)

As a result, Defendant has provided enough evidence to rebut the presumption that the information in the proof of service is incorrect. Plaintiff has the burden to establish the prima facie facts entitling the Court to assume jurisdiction. Since Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, he fails to meet his burden.

Accordingly, the motion to quash is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Specially Appearing Defendant Deeran Demanco Anderson’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint.

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