Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 22STCV06790, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06790    Hearing Date: December 13, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Maria Del Consuelo Bustos Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Malachi Rashid Mapps (“Mapps”) and Mia Marie Ballantyne (“Ballantyne”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

As relevant to this proceeding, on April 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed proof of service of the summons and complaint alleging Mapps was served by substitute service at 5175 Jerry Tarkanian Way Unit 5306 Las Vegas, NV 89148-5168 (the “Las Vegas Address”).  The documents were allegedly left with Ballantyne. 

On July 8, 2022, Mapps filed the instant motion to quash service of the summons at the Las Vegas Address.  Mapps asserts that he never resided at the Las Vegas address or had any connection to it.  Plaintiff opposes the motion providing that at the time service was made at the Las Vegas Address, Plaintiff mistakenly believed Mapps resided there with Ballantyne.  Plaintiff contends that Mapps has now been properly served at an address in Irvine, California.  In reply, Mapps argues that he is entitled to an order quashing the prior service at the Las Vegas Address. 

The Court notes that on September 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service of the summons and complaint alleging Mapps was served by substituted service at an address in Irvine, California when the documents were left with “Kenya Burks - Mother, Co-occupant.” 

2. Motion to Quash Service Summons

“ ‘On a motion to quash service of summons, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that all jurisdictional criteria are met. [Citations.] The burden must be met by competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documents; an unverified complaint may not be considered as supplying the necessary facts.’ [Citation.]”  (Brown v. Garcia (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1198, 1203; see also Sheard v. Superior Court (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 207, 211 [“[W]here a defendant properly moves to quash service of summons the burden is on the plaintiff to prove facts requisite to the effective service.”].) 

“A defendant is under no duty to respond in any way to a defectively served summons. It makes no difference that defendant had actual knowledge of the action. Such knowledge does not dispense with statutory requirements for service of summons.”  (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2015) ¶4:414, p. 4-67 citing Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1457, 1466 (Kappel) and Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808 (Ruttenberg)) “[N]otice does not substitute for proper service. Until statutory requirements are satisfied, the court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant.”  (Ruttenberg, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 808.)  “[I]n California, ‘…the original service of process, which confers jurisdiction, must conform to statutory requirements or all that follows is void.”'  (Id. at p. 809.)

Here, Mapps asserts that at the time of the accident, he and Ballantyne resided together in California, but Ballantyne later moved to Nevada alone after their relationship ended.  Mapps contends he never resided at the Las Vegas Address or used it as his regular place of mailing.  Further, Mapps asserts that Ballantyne was not authorized to accepted service on his behalf.  Mapps avers that the proof of service alleging service of the summons and complaint at the Las Vegas Address is therefore invalid. 

When a defendant files a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that service of the summons and complaint was proper.  (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)  In this case, Plaintiff does not dispute that service of the summons and complaint on Mapps at the Las Vegas Address was invalid.  Rather, Plaintiff provides only that Plaintiff mistakenly believed that Mapps moved to there with Ballantyne, but that Plaintiff has now determined he receives mail at the Irvine address listed in the September 1, 2022 proof of service.  Because Plaintiff does not dispute that service on Mapps at the Las Vegas Address was improper, that the alleged service there was proper. 

            To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to rely on the proof of service filed April 12, 2022, the motion to quash service of summons and complaint is granted.  The Court makes no findings at this time in connection with the proof of service of the summons and complaint filed September 1, 2022. 

Defendant 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 13^th day of December 2022