Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV36946, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV36946    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Yadira Moreno (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Force 12 Training Center (“Force 12”) and City of Los Angeles (the “City”) alleging that defendants negligently maintained, owned, operated, or managed a “building located in Los Angeles” by failing to provide safe flooring as to create a dangerous and hazardous condition, which caused Plaintiff to suffer injury.  (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 9). 

At this time, non-party Adriana Zapata (“Zapata”) filed the instant motion to quash service of summons.  The motion is unopposed.

On December 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed proof of service of summons stating that Plaintiff substitute served Force 12.  The proof of service specifies that “Adriana Zapata – Agent for Service” was served on behalf of Force 12 by leaving the summons, complaint and related documents with a “Jose R. – Uncle” at an address in Los Angeles, California. 

2. Motion to Quash Service of Summons

“[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.)

When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving the facts requisite to an effective service. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) “The filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper. However, the presumption arises only if the proof of service complies with the applicable statutory requirements.” (Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 790.)

            “[O]ne ‘who is not named either by his true or a fictitious name or as an unknown defendant is not a proper party to an action, and service of summons upon such person upon proper motion should be quashed.’ [Citation.]”  (Fuss v. City of Los Angeles (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 643, 646, quoting Kline v. Beauchamp (1938) 29 Cal.App.2d 340, 342; see also McClatchy v. Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 368, 376 [“A service upon one not named in a complaint does not confer jurisdiction to proceed upon the complaint against him, and a motion to quash is proper.”].) 

Here, Zapata asserts that she severed all business and personal ties with Force 12 more than two years before Plaintiff’s alleged injury.  Zapata contends that she is not a named defendant in this action, and that she is not Force 12’s agent, owner, employee, or legal representative.  Zapata attests that she is not affiliated with Force 12, so the Court lacks jurisdiction over her.  Zapata requests that the service directed at her be quashed. 

Zapata is not a named defendant in this action, and Plaintiff does not oppose this motion.  Because the motion is unopposed, Plaintiff necessarily did not meet the burden to establish that service was proper. 

The motion to quash service of summons and complaint is therefore granted.  To the extent that the summons, complaint, and related documents served on Zapata were intended to initiate proceedings against Zapata personally, that service is quashed. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 2^nd day of March 2023