Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV11517, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11517    Hearing Date: April 13, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTIES:             Specially Appearing Defendant Lien Machine, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:        Plaintiff William Bryan

Motion to

The court considered the moving papers and opposition filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            On March 17, 2021, Plaintiff William Bryan (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Specially Appearing Defendant Lien Machine, Inc. (SAD) and others.

            The proofs of service filed by Plaintiff state SAD was personally served on November 28, 2022, with the first amended summons and complaint.

            However, SAD only received the complaint by way of priority mail on November 30, 2022.

            On March 14, 2023, SAD filed this motion to quash.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            “A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, 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, sudd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

            SAD contends that the court should grant its motion to quash because it was never personally served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10 [“A summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete at the time of such delivery.”].) For personal service on a corporation like SAD, the summons and complaint must be delivered to the designated agent for service of process, 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 416.10, subd. (b).) SAD is correct that it was never personally served.

            However, service on a corporation may also be effectuated by substituted service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (a) [“In lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served as specified in Section 416.10 . . . a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address, other than a United States Postal Service post office box, with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. When service is effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at a mailing address, it shall be left with a person at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.”].)

            Here, Plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of substituted service. True, he has mailed the summons and complaint to SAD. (Bryan Decl.; Ex. 2; Ex. 3.) But Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a copy of the summons and complaint were left at SAD’s address during office hours with a person apparently in charge or of suitable age. Although Plaintiff has included a Notice of Acknowledgment of Receipt, SAD has not signed the document. (Bryan Decl.; Ex. 1.)

CONCLUSION

                Based on the foregoing, the court grants the motion to quash.

                Specially Appearing Defendant Lien Machine, Inc. is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿April 13, 2023

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTIES:             Specially Appearing Defendant Lien Machine 1 Ltd.

RESPONDING PARTY:        Plaintiff William Bryan

Motion to

The court considered the moving papers and opposition filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            On March 17, 2021, Plaintiff William Bryan (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Specially Appearing Defendant Lien Machine 1 Ltd. (SAD) and others.

            The proofs of service filed by Plaintiff state SAD was personally served on November 28, 2022 with the first amended summons and complaint.

            However, SAD only received the complaint by way of priority mail on November 30, 2022.

            On March 14, 2023, SAD filed this motion to quash.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            “A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, 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, sudd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

            SAD contends that the court should grant its motion to quash because it was never personally served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10 [“A summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete at the time of such delivery.”].) For personal service on a corporation like SAD, the summons and complaint must be delivered to the designated agent for service of process, 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 416.10, subd. (b).) SAD is correct that it was never personally served.

            However, service on a corporation may also be effectuated by substituted service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (a) [“In lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served as specified in Section 416.10 . . . a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address, other than a United States Postal Service post office box, with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. When service is effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at a mailing address, it shall be left with a person at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.”].)

            Here, Plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of substituted service. True, he has mailed the summons and complaint to SAD. (Bryan Decl.; Ex. 2; Ex. 3.) But Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a copy of the summons and complaint were left at SAD’s address during office hours with a person apparently in charge or of suitable age. Although Plaintiff has included a Notice of Acknowledgment of Receipt, SAD has not signed the document. (Bryan Decl.; Ex. 1.)

CONCLUSION

                Based on the foregoing, the court grants the motion to quash.

                Specially Appearing Defendant Lien Machine 1, Ltd. is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿April 13, 2023

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court