Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV36578, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV36578    Hearing Date: August 30, 2022    Dept: 28

Specially Appearing Intervenor Arch Insurance Company’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint on Defendant Tudor, LLC

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On October 11, 2019, Plaintiffs Pedro Velasquez (“Velasquez”) and Juliana Ajpacaja Baquiax (“Baquiax”) filed this action against Defendants Rosalyn Lynn Harris (“Harris”), Harmony Place (“Harmony”), Shultz 2004 Family Trust (“Trust”), and Jeffrey Schwartz (“Schwartz”) for general negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Tudor, LLC (“Tudor”).

On January 11, 2022, the Court dismissed Schwartz, with prejudice, from the complaint. On May 17, 2022, Harris filed an answer.

On May 20, 2022, Specially Appearing Intervenor Catalina U.S. Insurance Service, LLC (“Catalina”) to be heard on August 19, 2022. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to August 31, 2022. On August 19, 2022, Specially Appearing Intervenor Arch Insurance Company (“Arch”) filed a stipulation to substitute for Catalina, which was granted.

There is no trial date currently set.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Catalina requests the Court quash service of summons on Tudor on the grounds that service was not made according to any statutorily method for service of summons.

LEGAL STANDARD

A plaintiff has the initial burden to establish valid statutory service of a summons and complaint. (Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-40; Floveyor Internat. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 794.) 

A defendant may file a motion to quash a service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over said defendant. CCP § 418.10 (a). A motion made under CCP § 418.10 does not constitute an appearance unless a court denies the motion.

“Although a proper basis for personal jurisdiction exists and notice is given in a manner which satisfied the constitutional requirements of due process, service of summons is not effective and the court does not acquire jurisdiction of the party unless the statutory requirements for service of summons are met.” (Engebretson & Co. v. Harrison (1981) 125 Cal. App. 3d 436, 443.)

CCP § 415.10 provides that “[a] summons may be served by personal delivery of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served. Service of summons in this manner is deemed complete at the time of such delivery.” A party may also serve the complaint and summons via other statutorily authorized means, but service of both the complaint and summons is necessary.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs served Tudor via personal service on Barry Harris. Barry submitted a declaration that said service only included a copy of the Plaintiffs’ summons and a statement of damages; there was no served complaint. (Declaration of Barry Harris ¶ 5.) As such, Tudor was never properly served, and the Court does not have jurisdiction over Tudor. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Specially Appearing Intervenor Arch Insurance Company’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint on Defendant Tudor, LLC is GRANTED. Service of summons and the complaint on Tudor is quashed.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.