Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV19716, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19716    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Date:               8/23/22 (9:30 AM)

Case:               Stevan Dweck v. Sophia Alvarez (22STCV19716)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Sophia Alvarez’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED.

Defendant Sophia Alvarez moves to quash service of summons. Defendant maintains that personal service was not effectuated. (See Alvarez Decl. ¶ 2 [stating copy of summons and Complaint posted outside door].)

“When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process ‘the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413, quoting Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-40.)

CCP § 415.20(b), which is applicable to individual persons, states: “If 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 . . . usual place of business . . . in the presence of . . . a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business . . . 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, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.”

Plaintiff refers to the proof of service of summons filed on July 26, 2022 concurrently with the motion. The proof of service is executed under penalty of perjury by registered process server Victor E. Mendez. Mendez attempted personal service on defendant on June 23, 2022 at 10:15 a.m., June 24, 2022 at 4:40 p.m., and June 27, 2022 at 2:07 p.m. at 702 North Heliotrope Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90029, a business address. Based on the three attempts at personal service, the Court finds that plaintiff attempted with reasonable diligence to personally serve defendant.

On June 27, 2022 at 2:07 p.m., Mendez effectuated substitute service pursuant to CCP § 415.20(b) by leaving the summons and Complaint with “Beth,” a person at least 18 years of age and apparently in charge, at defendant’s usual place of business; informing Beth of the general nature of the papers; and thereafter mailing the summons and Complaint by first class mail, postage prepaid to the North Heliotrope address where copies of these papers were left.

Defendant did not file any reply. Therefore, the burden of defendant to defeat the valid presumption of service invoked by the proof of service of summons filed on July 26, 2022 is not met.

The motion is DENIED.