Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV03023, Date: 2025-06-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03023    Hearing Date: June 2, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT GUILAN ZENG’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT is GRANTED because the attempted service through Zeng’s tenant does not statutorily comply with the requirements of CCP section 415.20.

Background

This lawsuit arises out of a dispute between neighbors concerning a fence; the plaintiff alleges that the fence—constructed by defendant’s tenants near the backyard property line— violates local ordinances and the homeowner’s association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”), and obstructs plaintiff’s view.

On October 2, 2023, Plaintiff RUBEN AGUINAGA filed suit against Defendants DEANE HOMES SWIM CLUB, A NONPROFIT CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, SANDY MORRIS, LYDIA FIGUEROA, MICHAEL DOUGLAS, KEN DAVIS, LESLIE ALLYN, GORDON BAKER, GLADYS CRITTENDON, TERRY NAVARRO AND JEANNINE SAMUELS (collectively “HOA” or “HOA Defendants”) and GUI LAN ZENG and FIONA TSANG (collectively, “Homeowner Defendants”) for:

1.     Declaratory Relief

2.     BREACH OF AND ENFORCEMENT OF CC&R’S AND GOVERNING DOCUMENTS

3.     CONTINUING NUISANCE

4.     BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES

5.     Negligence

6.     INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

7.     NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

8.     MANDATORY AND PROHIBITIVE INJUNCTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS AND REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO REMOVE THE FENCE

9.     FOR QUIET TITLE BASED UPON PRESCRIPTIVE, EQUITABLE, EXPRESS & IMPLIED VIEW EASEMENTS

On January 31, 2024, HOA Defendants filed an answer.

On November 12, 2024, a ‘STIPULATION FOR, INTER ALIA, DISMISSAL OF INDIVIDUALLY NAMED DEANE HOMES SWIM CLUB BOARD MEMBER DEFENDANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE’ was filed.

On April 2, 2025, the instant motion was filed.

To date, as of 5/29/25, no reply has been received.

Discussion

Zeng moves to quash the service of summons and complaint as Zeng’s tenant was served. More specifically, the motion sets out the following:

On or about March 3, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel, Mansfield Collins, appeared at the case management conference and represented to the Court that defendants Gui Lan Zeng and Fiona Tsang had been served. However, as of the filing of this motion, plaintiff has not filed a proof of service as to the moving defendant, Gui Lan Zeng. Upon learning of plaintiff’s representation to the Court, defendant promptly contacted her tenant, Heather Rozier who stated on 3/4/25, an unidentified man handed Rozier an envelope.

Here, the court agrees with Zeng that service of summons on Zeng through her tenant is legally invalid under California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20. That statute permits substitute service only when personal service cannot be accomplished with reasonable diligence, and even then, the summons and complaint must be left at the defendant’s “usual place of business,” “usual mailing address,” or “usual place of abode,” with a person apparently in charge or a competent member of the household, followed by a mailing of the documents to the same address. None of these statutory conditions are met here as the subject property is a rental property, not the defendant’s residence or place of business.

Moreover, the purported service failed to comply with the minimum requirements of substitute service under § 415.20(b), which requires both proper delivery and subsequent mailing.

All in all, defendant Zeng was not validly served under California law as the attempted service through her tenant is improper.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion to quash service of summons for lack of proper service under CCP § 415.20 is GRANTED.