Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV14436, Date: 2024-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14436    Hearing Date: October 4, 2024    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

Motions to Quash Service of Summons by Specially Appearing Defendants (1) Nina Ringgold and (2) Justin Ringgold-Lockhart

Specially appearing defendants Nina Ringgold and Justin Ringgold-Lockhart move to quash service of summons.  “[O]nce a defendant files a motion to quash the burden is on the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the validity of the service and the court’s jurisdiction over the defendant.”  (Bolkiah v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 984, 991.) 

(1) Nina Ringgold’s Motion

Plaintiffs Regina Ricardo and Enrique Ricardo Vargas do not meet their burden of showing valid service of summons on defendant Nina Ringgold.  The purported service on her was substituted service, a prescribed form of constructive service that must be strictly construed.  (Calvert v. Al Binali (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 954, 962.)  An individual can only be served by substituted service “[i]f a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served.”  (CCP § 415.20(b).)  “Ordinarily, two or three attempts at personal service at a proper place and with correct pleadings should fully satisfy the requirement of reasonable diligence and allow substituted service to be made.”  (Kremerman v. White (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 358, 373.)

The proof of service plaintiffs filed on August 2, 2024, states the process server effected substituted service on Nina R. Ringgold via substituted service on “Justin Ringgold – Son.”  On the proof of service, the process server did not check box 5.b(5) to indicate he “attach[ed] a declaration of diligence stating actions taken first to attempt personal service.”

Assuming opposing papers could cure this defect in the proof of service, plaintiffs do not do so.  The opposition asserts, “On August 1, 2024, Plaintiff hired process server, Carlos Fernandez, of IPEC, Inc. Mr. Fernandez made attempts to personally serve the Defendants, and on August 2, 2024, while monitoring Defendants home, Mr. Fernandez made contact with Defendant Justin Ringgold-Lockhart outside the home of Defendants.”  (Opp., p. 3.)  Fernandez’s declaration only states he went to the home one time to attempt to serve the papers on August 2, 2024, at 10:05 a.m.  (Fernandez Decl., ¶ 4.)  He does not state he knocked on the door or that some obstacle prevented him from doing so.  No evidence in the record shows plaintiffs exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to personally serve defendant Nina Ringgold before resorting to substituted service.

(2) Justin Ringgold-Lockhart’s Motion

            Plaintiffs meet their burden of showing valid service of summons on defendant Justin Ringgold-Lockhart.  Ringgold-Lockhart argues otherwise because “[t]he summons for this action identifies the defendant as Justin Ringgold” (Motion, p. 3), not Justin Ringgold-Lockhart.  In his declaration, defendant asserts there is a different person named “Justin Ringgold” in California.  (Ringgold-Lockhart Decl., ¶ 3.)

This mistake does not invalidate the personal service of the summons.  “ ‘ “[I]f the service is otherwise properly made, and the person served is aware that he is the person named as a defendant in the erroneous manner, jurisdiction is obtained.” ’ ”  (Sakaguchi v. Sakaguchi (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 852, 857.)  There, the court noted the defendant “identifies no evidence that the misspelling rendered him unaware that he was the person named as defendant.”  (Ibid.)  

Though the error in the defendant’s name is more significant than the single letter misspelling in Sakaguchi v. Sakaguchi, the record shows that Justin Ringgold-Lockhart is aware he is the person plaintiffs meant to sue.  The complaint’s caption names the defendant “Justin Ringgold”, but the body repeatedly—and exclusively—refers to him as “Justin Ringgold-Lockhart” (Comp., ¶¶ 4, 6) or “Ringgold-Lockhart” (¶¶ 6, 8, 9, 20).  Moreover, in his declaration, Ringgold-Lockhart asserts, “The plaintiffs in this action have already filed an action against me with the same or identical claims.”  (Ringgold-Lockhart Decl., ¶ 2.)  In other words, he acknowledges that plaintiffs have sued him—not the person named Justin Ringgold—before and mean to sue him again.

Defendant’s reliance on Manson, Iver & York v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36 is misplaced.  There, the court stated there was “no evidence Paula Black knew she was the person plaintiff intended to name as a defendant in his complaint”, which instead named “Pamela Black” as a defendant.  (Id. at p. 47.)  As discussed above, ample evidence shows Ringgold-Lockhart knows he is the person plaintiffs intended to name as a defendant.  This case is analogous to Billings v. Edwards (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 826, 830, where a proof of service of summons on “ ‘John Edwards Pest Control’ rather than on ‘Edwards and Son Pest Control’ ” did not prevent the court from obtaining personal jurisdiction. 

Plaintiffs made a mistake by omitting “-Lockhart” in the caption and the summons.  They made no mistake in personally serving the complaint and summons on the person they meant to sue.  And Ringgold-Lockhart acknowledges he knows he is the person plaintiffs meant to sue.  Plaintiffs’ service of summons gave this court personal jurisdiction over defendant Justin Ringgold-Lockhart.

Ringgold-Lockhart also argues the summons should be quashed because plaintiffs delayed acquiring it from the clerk and delayed serving it.  He provides no authority that such delay prevents the court from acquiring personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Finally, he argues, “The endorsement or ‘notice re capacity in which person served’ section on the summons was left completely blank. (Exhibit 1).”  (Motion, p. 9.)  In his declaration, he states Exhibit 1 is a “Copy left at 17901 Malden St., Northridge, CA 91325.”  (Ringgold-Lockhart Decl., ¶ 8.)  The proof of service filed on August 2, 2024, states, under penalty of perjury, “The ‘Notice to the Person Served’ (on the summons) was completed as follows: a. [x] as an individual defendant.”  (POS, § 6.a.)  The sworn declaration of service meets plaintiffs’ burden of showing the summons was properly filled out.

The copy of the summons Justin Ringgold-Lockhart attached as Exhibit 1 to his declaration, meanwhile, is not the copy left at the stated address.  Exhibit 1 is a digital .pdf document, not a scanned copy of a printed document.  It includes a clickable hyperlink to “www.courts.ca.gov” on the bottom right.  Exhibit 1 is blank because it is the digital version of the summons issued by the clerk before it is filled out to reflect service on a defendant. 

Disposition

Specially appearing defendant Nina Ringgold’s motion to quash service of summons is granted. 

Defendant Justin Ringgold-Lockhart’s motion to quash service of summons is denied.  Defendant Justin Ringgold-Lockhart shall serve and file a responsive pleading within 20 days.