Judge Bradley S. Phillips, Case Number: 23STCP04180, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Bradley S. Phillips, Case: 23STCP04180, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept26@lacourt.org (and "cc" all other parties in the same email) no later than 7:30 am on the day of the hearing, and please notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

2. For any motion where no parties submit on the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS EMAIL (SMCdept26@lacourt.org) FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT ON A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 23STCP04180 Hearing Date: October 8, 2024 Dept: 26

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Process is denied.

The Proof of Service signed by a registered process server shows that the Complaint, Summons, and Civil Case Cover Sheet were given to “Roomate Amy” on December 2, 2023, at Defendant’s home address and that the documents were mailed to Defendant at that address on December 6, 2024. It appears that “Roomate Amy” was actually Defendant’s sister, who was feeding Defendant’s cat. While there is a dispute whether the Summons and Civil Cover Sheet were given to Defendant’s sister, there is no dispute that the sister gave the Complaint to Defendant, who therefore had notice that the action had been filed. Defendant claims not to have received the documents in the mail, but the registered process-server’s declaration establishes that they were placed in the mail, as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b).

Defendant claims that three attempts at personal service are required before substituted service is allowed and that the process server’s first attempt should be disregarded because no time is given and he states, incorrectly, that Defendant’s name was not on the building directory. Even assuming that is true, “[o]rdinarily, … two or three attempts at personal service at a proper place should fully satisfy the requirement of reasonable diligence and allow substituted service to be made.” Trackman v. Kennedy (2010) 187 Cal.App.4^th 175, 185 (quoting Espindola v. Nunez (1987) 199 Cal.App.3d 1389, 1392).

Defendant also asserts that Defendant’s sister does not qualify as “a competent member of the household” for purposes of substituted service. But the process server was unquestionably entitled to conclude that he was making service upon “a person whose ‘relationship with the person to be served makes it more likely than not that they will deliver process to the named party,’” thereby satisfying the statutory purpose of permitting “service to be completed upon a good faith attempt at physical service on a responsible person.” See Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim (1992) 6 Cal.App.4^th 1387, 1393. And it is undisputed that Defendant’s sister did so.

Further, the California Supreme Court has instructed that the service-of-process statutes are to be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold jurisdiction if actual notice has been received by the defendant. Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim, 6 Cal.App.4^th at 1392 (citing Pasadena Medi-Center Associates v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 773, 778). That instruction extends to substituted service as well as to personal service. Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim, 6 Cal.App.4^th at 1392; Espindola v. Nunez, 199 Cal.App.3d at 1391.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10(b), Defendant shall serve and file a responsive pleading within 15 days of service upon Defendant of written notice of entry of this order.