Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV11222, Date: 2024-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11222    Hearing Date: October 10, 2024    Dept: 14

#7

Case Background

This is an action for violations of the FEHA and the Labor Code and unfair business practices. Plaintiff alleges that while she was employed as a housekeeper, Defendants paid Plaintiff less than minimum wage, denied her uninterrupted breaks, failed to pay overtime, and committed other violations of the Labor Code.

On May 3, 2024, Plaintiff Elsa Archila filed her Complaint against Defendants LM Orchid Investments, LLC (Orchid) and Lidia Khorsandi.

On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for reimbursement of service costs against Defendants.

Instant Pleading

Plaintiff moves for reimbursement of service costs under Code Civ. Proc., section 415.30 against Defendants.

Decision

Plaintiff’s motion for reimbursement of service costs is GRANTED. Defendants are to pay Plaintiff $2,486.85 within 30 days of receiving notice of this order.

Legal Standard

A summons may be served by mail to the person to be served as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30. (Code Civ. Proc., section 415.30, subd. (a).) 

If a person to whom a copy of the summons and of the complaint are mailed pursuant to section 415.30 fails to complete and return the acknowledgement form set forth in subdivision (b) within 20 days from the date of such mailing, the party to whom the summons was mailed shall be liable for reasonable expenses thereafter incurred in serving or attempting to serve the party by another method permitted by this chapter, and, except for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending, upon motion, with or without notice, shall award the party such expenses whether or not he is otherwise entitled to recover his costs in the action. (Code Civ. Proc., section 415.30, subd. (d).) 

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for reimbursement of $2,486.85 in service costs under Code Civ. Proc., section 415.30. Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that after Defendant Khorsandi (“Khorsandi”) represented she was no longer represented by her previous counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel served Khorsandi and Orchid by mailing the summons, complaint, and acknowledgement forms to Khorsandi’s home. (Decl., ¶7.) Khorsandi is the agent for service for Defendant Orchid (“Orchid”) (Id., ¶2.) After Khorsandi refused to execute and return the acknowledgement forms, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted service through the Sheriff’s Department before hiring a private investigator. (Id., ¶¶10-11.) The investigator successfully served Khorsandi and Orchid on August 15, 2024 after staking out the service address. (Id., ¶¶12-13.) The cost of the service attempt made through the Sheriff’s office was $100. (Id., ¶15.) The cost of the private investigator was $2,386.85. (Id., ¶14.)

Plaintiff provides sufficient evidence that she served Khorsandi and Orchid via mail, Khorsandi refused to execute the acknowledgement forms, and Plaintiff thereafter incurred service costs. Khorsandi failed to oppose this motion and thus fails to show there was good cause for her failure to complete the acknowledgement forms. The lack of an opposition amounts to a concession that the motion is meritorious. (See California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(a); see also Rule 3.1320(f); Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4^th 1, 20 (the party who fails to argue an issue abandons that issue).) Here, Defendants are liable for the cost Plaintiff’s service expenses incurred after July 3, 2024 because Khorsandi failed to complete the acknowledgement forms. Therefore, the Court awards Plaintiff $2,486.85 in costs as required under Code Civ. Proc., section 415.30.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion for reimbursement of service costs is GRANTED. Defendants are to pay Plaintiff $2,486.85 within 30 days of receiving notice of this order.