udge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date: November 22, 2024

Case Name: Morris v. Echo Park Properties, LLC

Case No.: 24STCV15401

Matter: (1.) Motion for Order Directing Service of Summons on Defendant Echo Park Properties, LLC by Delivery of Process to Secretary of State

(2.) Motion for Order Directing Service of Summons on Defendant Vesa Commercial, Inc. by Delivery of Process to Secretary of State

Moving Party: (1.) Plaintiff Caitlin Morris

(2.) Plaintiff Caitlin Morris

Responding Party: (1.) None

(2.) None

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Order Directing Service of Summons on Defendant Echo Park Properties, LLC by Delivery of Process to the Secretary of State is denied. The Motion for Order Directing Service of Summons on Defendant Vesa Commercial, Inc. by Delivery of Process to the Secretary of State is denied.

This is a habitability case. Plaintiff Caitlin Morris (Plaintiff) filed a complaint for unhabitable living conditions in her apartment located at 32 Echo Park Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90026 against the owner, Defendant Echo Park Properties, LLC, and the property management company, Defendant Vesa Commercial, Inc.

Plaintiff now moves the Court for an order directing service of summons and complaint to be made on Defendant Echo Park Properties, LLC and Vesa Commercial Inc. by service on the California Secretary of State. The motions are unopposed.

The Motion for Order Directing Service of Summons on Defendant Echo Park Properties, LLC by delivery of process to Secretary of State is denied. The Motion for Order Directing Service of Summons on Defendant Vesa Commercial, Inc. by delivery of process to Secretary of State is denied.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order directing service of summons and complaint to be made on Defendant Echo Park Properties, LLC and Defendant Vesa Commercial, Inc. by service on the California Secretary of State.

First, Plaintiff contends that designated Agent for Service of Process for Defendant Echo Park has intentionally evaded service of process.

Pursuant to California law, a court may order, under certain circumstances, that service be made on a corporation by hand-delivery of process and an order authorizing such service to the Secretary of State. Corporation Code section 1702, subdivision (a), provides:

“If an agent for the purpose of service of process has resigned and has not been replaced or if the agent designated cannot with reasonable diligence be found at the address designated for personally delivering the process, or if no agent has been designated and it is shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court that process against a domestic corporation cannot be served with reasonable diligence upon the designated agent by hand in the manner provided in Section 415.10, subdivision (a) of Section 415.20 or subdivision (a) of Section 415.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure or upon the corporation in the manner provided in subdivision (a), (b) or (c) of Section 416.10 or subdivision (a) of Section 416.20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may make an order that the service be made upon the corporation by delivering by hand to the Secretary of State, or to any person employed in the Secretary of State's office in the capacity of assistant or deputy, one copy of the process for each defendant to be served, together with a copy of the order authorizing such service. Service in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after delivery of the process to the Secretary of State.”

“[A]s a condition precedent to the issuance of an order for such substituted service,” a plaintiff's affidavit must establish that “the corporation cannot be served with the exercise of due diligence in any other manner provided by law.” (Batte v. Bandy (1958) 165 Cal.App.2d 527, 528.)

Here, the California Secretary of Business identified Defendant Echo Park Properties, LLC as an active California corporation and the agent for service of process or Registered Agent was Norman Pedersen. The address designated Agent for Service of Process for Defendant Echo Park Properties, LLC is 444 Flower St 2530, Los Angeles, CA 90071. (Zolfaghari Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel instructed their registered process server at One Legal to serve Defendant Echo Park Properties, LLC via Norman Pedersen at the address listed with the Secretary of State with a copy of the Summons, Complaint, Civil Case Cover Sheet and Addendum, Notice of Case Assignment, and Notice – ADR Package. (Zolfaghari Decl., ¶ 5.) The process server made eight unsuccessful attempts at this registered address. (Zolfaghari Decl., ¶ 6-8, Ex. A-B).

Thereafter, Plaintiff retained a private investigator and performed a Skip Trace on the Defendant’s registered agent Norman Pedersen and found his home address to be 608 Starlight Crest Dr, La Cañada Flintridge, CA 91011. (Zolfaghari Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s registered process then made four unsuccessful attempts to serve Defendant’s registered process server at this home address. (Zolfaghari Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. C.)

This affidavit is insufficient.

In addition to delivery to the designated agent under subdivision (a), California Code of Civil Procedure Section 416.10 also provides under subdivision (b) that a summons may be served on a corporation by any of the following methods:

“To the president, chief executive officer, or other head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or chief financial officer, a general manager, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process.”

Where a plaintiff’s affidavit fails to demonstrate that a diligent search for officers as well as agents was performed, the affidavit is inadequate. (Batte, 165 Cal.App.2d at 536.) In Batte, the court found an affidavit insufficient because it failed “to disclose that any effort was made to locate any [corporate] officer within the state.” (Batte, 165 Cal.App.2d at 535-536.)

In the instant case, Plaintiff's affidavit is insufficient for the same reason. It shows her attempts to serve consisted of multiple attempted service at address listed for Defendant's principal place of business on the designated agent and attempts at service at the designated agent’s home address. There is no indication Plaintiff has made any attempt to locate officers of the corporation.

Accordingly, although Plaintiff has made some good faith attempts to serve the corporation's designated agent, it has failed to show “that the corporation cannot be served with the exercise of due diligence in any other manner provided by law.” (Batte, 165 Cal.App.2d at 535; see also Viewtech, Inc. v. Skytech USA, Inc. (S.D. Cal., May 14, 2007, No. CIV. 07CV541-L(NLS)) 2007 WL 1429903, at *2.) Until Plaintiff can show she attempted to comply with section 416.10 but nevertheless could not effect service, it is not appropriate “to seek the assistance of the court and the Secretary of State in obtaining jurisdiction.” (Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 295, 312.)

Plaintiff has not established that process cannot be served with reasonable diligence pursuant to Corporations Code section 1702. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to serve Defendant Echo Park Properties, LLC by delivery of process to the California Secretary of State is denied.

With respect to Defendant Vesa Commercial, the California Secretary of Business identified Defendant Vesa Commercial as an active California corporation and the agent for service of process or Registered Agent as “1505 Corporation, Registered Agents Inc.” (Zolfaghari Decl., ¶ 4.) There was no address for the agent for service of process. Instead, the principal address was 3801 Eagle Rock Blvd., #8, Los Angeles, CA 90065 and the mailing address was PO Box 65645, Los Angeles, CA 90065. (Zolfaghari Deccl., ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff’s counsel then instructed their registered process server at One Legal to serve Vesa Commercial via “1505 Corporation, Registered Agents Inc.” listed with the Secretary of State with a copy of the Summons, Complaint, Civil Case Cover Sheet and Addendum, Notice of Case Assignment, and Notice – ADR Package. (Zolfaghari Decl., ¶ 5.)

On June 24, 2024, service was attempted on Vesa Commercial via CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service - Nicole Stauss - Person Authorized to Accept Service of Process. (Zolfaghari Decl., ¶ 6). Three days later, Plaintiff’s counsel was notified by CSC Lawyers Incorporating Services via a letter that the service of process could not be forwarded to the intended party. (Zolfaghari Decl., ¶ 7.)

Thereafter, Plaintiff retained a private investigator to confirm that the address of Vesa Commercial’s owner/principal, Matthew Parrish, was the principal address listed on the Secretary of State at 3801 Eagle Rock Blvd., #8, Los Angeles, CA 90065. (Zolfaghari Decl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s process server made eight attempts to serve Matthew Parrish at this address. (Zolfaghari Decl., ¶¶ 10-11, Exs. B-C.)

Plaintiff's affidavit is again insufficient. It shows her attempts to serve consisted of one attempt of service at the designated agent’s address and multiple attempts at service at the address listed for Defendant’s principal place of business on the owner. There is no indication Plaintiff has made any attempt to locate any other officers of the corporation.

Thus, for similar reasons as Defendant Echo Properties, LLC, the Motion for Order Directing Service of Summons on Defendant Vesa Commercial, Inc. by delivery of process to Secretary of State is denied.