Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV25548, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25548    Hearing Date: August 5, 2024    Dept: 52

Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment

Plaintiff Key Star Capital Fund III, L.P. requested entry of default of defendants Light Days Hospice, Inc. and Avedis Avedissian.  The clerk entered defendants’ defaults on June 5, 2024.  Plaintiff has not requested entry of default judgment.

Plaintiff did not submit adequate proof of service of summons on defendant Avedissian.  The proof of service attests to substituted service on Avedissian at 109 N. Chevy Chase Dr., Unit C, Box 220, Glendale, CA 91206.  The proof of service states the process server left the documents with a “Clerk at Mail Box Rental Store, a Commercial Mail Receiving Agency.” 

For substituted service on a commercial mail receiving agency (CMRA), Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20(c) provides: “Notwithstanding subdivision (b),” the general provision for substituted service on an individual, “if the only address reasonably known for the person to be served is a private mailbox obtained through a commercial mail receiving agency, service of process may be effected on the first delivery attempt by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with the commercial mail receiving agency in the manner described in subdivision (d) of Section 17538.5 of the Business and Professions Code.”  Without proper grounds for service on a CMRA, any default judgment against Avedissian would be void.  (Kremerman v. White (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 358, 373-374.)  

Plaintiff has not shown the CMRA is “the only address reasonably known for” Avedissian.  Unless plaintiff does so, it cannot resort to substituted service through a CMRA unless “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, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 373.)  Plaintiff did not submit a declaration of diligence attesting to any attempts to personally serve Avedissian.

The court hereby vacates the default of defendant Avedis Avedissian.  The order to show cause re: entry of default judgment is hereby continued to October 10, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.