Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 23STCP00041, Date: 2023-09-05 Tentative Ruling

Hon. Curtis Kin The clerk for Department 82 may be reached at (213) 893-0530.

Case Number: 23STCP00041    Hearing Date: September 5, 2023    Dept: 82

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF

SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

Date:               9/5/23 (9:30 AM)

Case:               Earnest A. Davis v. Los Angeles Cty. Child Support Services (23STCP00041)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Respondent Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED.

Respondent’s request to take judicial notice of Exhibit A is GRANTED, pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d). With respect to the Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus included in Exhibit A, the Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the document, not the truth of the matters asserted therein. (See Evid. Code § 452(d); Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564-69.)  The other requests for judicial notice are DENIED as “unnecessary to the resolution” of the issues before the Court. (Martinez v. San Diego County Credit Union (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1048, 1075.)

A motion to quash may be granted on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the respondent. (CCP § 418.10(a)(1).) “[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.) “When a [respondent] challenges [personal] jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden is on the [petitioner] to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Id. at 1439-40.) A petition for writ of mandate must be served consistently with the rules applicable to initiating a civil action. (CCP §§ 1096, 1107.)

Respondent references a “Proof of Service by First-Class Mail-Civil” filed on June 14, 2023. (Request for Judicial Notice Ex. A.) The proof of service indicates that a document titled “In re Matter of: Earnest Davis vs Kern County Dept, of Child Support CDCSS SHO Case No. CS19031001 Volumes I, II, III, and IV” was mailed to the County of Los Angeles. (Ibid.) The proof of service does not indicate that the petition in the instant proceeding, titled “Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus in Accordance with CCP §1094.5,” was served on respondent. (Ibid.) The proof of service also does not indicate that a summons was served on respondent. (Ibid.) Service of the summons and petition is necessary to complete service of process. (CCP § 415.10.)

Moreover, mail delivery alone is not sufficient to complete service of process. (See CCP § 415.10, et seq.) Service of process may be completed by personal delivery (CCP § 415.10), leaving a copy of the summons and petition at the usual mailing address with the person who is apparently in charge thereof and mailing a copy of the summons and petition to the person to be served (CCP § 415.20(a)), or by mail with execution of an acknowledgment of receipt (CCP § 415.30). Petitioner Mr. Earnest A. Davis’s proof of service filed on June 14, 2023 does not demonstrate proper service of summons through any means. (See CCP § 417.10.)

The burden shifts to petitioner to demonstrate proper service. Despite proper service of the moving papers, petitioner did not file any opposition. Accordingly, petitioner failed to meet his burden to demonstrate proper service.

The Court does not reach the other arguments raised in the motion because they do not address whether service of process was proper.

The motion is GRANTED. To the extent that a summons and petition were served on respondent, service is hereby QUASHED.