Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 23STCV35490, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV35490, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV35490 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 Dept: 14

Case Background

This is an action for breach of contract. Plaintiff rented commercial space from Defendants for the purpose of opening a Mediterranean restaurant. While Plaintiff was building necessary improvements, he fell behind on the payments and Defendant filed an unlawful detainer. Plaintiff alleges that when Defendant served the unlawful detainer, they told Plaintiff that nothing would come of the action and he should keep working on the improvements. Inevitably, Defendants secured possession of the now-improved property. Plaintiff wishes to recover for the value of the improvements he made, which he claims have increased the rental value of the property.

On November 3, 2022, Plaintiff Samvel Karapetyan filed his Complaint against Defendants Jui Chuan and Golden Valley Stores, LLC.

On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

Instant Pleading

Defendant Jui Chuan moves to quash service of summons.

Decision

Chuan’s motion is DENIED.

Legal Standard

“A defendant . . . may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a).) The motion must be filed on or before the last day on which the defendant must plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow. (Id.)

“[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.) “[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper” but only if it “complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.” (Id. at 1441-1442.) When a defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, the plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Coulston v. Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868.) “A court lacks jurisdiction over a party if there has not been proper service of process.” (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.)

Code Civ. Proc. section 415.20 provides that “[i]f a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served . . . a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address . . . in the presence of a competent member of the household . . . at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail…to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., section 415.20(b).) Service of a summons in this matter is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing. (Id.)

“Evidence Code section 647 provides that a registered process server’s declaration of service establishes a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence of the facts stated in the declaration.” (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390; Evid. Code § 647.)

Discussion

Here, according to Plaintiff’s proof of service of summons filed March 8, 2024, Plaintiff served Chuan via substituted service by leaving the papers on an individual named Mary Beth Leal at a hospital located at 605 Garfield Avenue, Monterey Park, CA 91754. Plaintiff’s process server thereafter mailed the documents to the same address.Plaintiff’s counsel contends that the address does not exist. (Chiao Decl., ¶9.) It appears the address is missing a direction, N. or S. Plaintiff’s counsel alleges that 605 N. Garfield is an outpatient medical facility while 605 S. Garfield is a single-family residence belonging to an unrelated family. (Id., ¶¶11-12.) Despite the error on the proof of service of summons, it is reasonable to infer that Plaintiff served the papers at 605 N. Garfield because the process server references a hospital in the declaration of reasonable diligence and this address is a medical facility. The Court finds that this error alone is insufficient to show that service was not proper. Moreover, there is no evidence that 605 N. Garfield is not Chuan’s usual place of business.