Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV11531, Date: 2023-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11531    Hearing Date: March 10, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Nolan Transportation Group, LLC’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On April 5, 2022, Plaintiff Samuel Rojas (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants C&C North America, Inc. (“C&C”), Nolan Transportation Group, LLC (“Nolan”), Emmet Isaacs (“Isaacs”) and Cosentino Los Angeles (“Cosentino”) for general negligence and premises liability.

On May 10, 2022, the Court dismissed Nolan, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff later amended the complaint, substituting Nolan for DOE 1.

On January 11, 2023, C&C filed an answer.

On December 28, 2022, Nolan filed a Motion to Quash Service of Summons to be heard on March 10, 2023. On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On March 2, 2023, Nolan filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 31, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Nolan requests the Court quash service of summons and the complaint.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion.

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.

If a plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant, that fact must be stated in the complaint; the pleading must later be amended accordingly, once plaintiff has discovered defendant’s true name. CCP § 474. When served, there should be notice that the defendant has been sued under a fictious name.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed her initial complaint against multiple defendants, including Nolan and DOES 1-50. Within the text of the allegations, there are no allegations that separate DOE 1 from C&C; all allegations against DOE 1 are also made against Nolan.

Plaintiff previously dismissed Nolan, without prejudice, before later amending the complaint to substitute Nolan for DOE 1. A person may only be served as a “DOE” if Plaintiff is genuinely ignorant of said defendant’s identity or facts establishing a cause of action against said Defendant. (Woo v. Sup.Ct. (Zarabi) (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 169, 177.) Given that there are no distinct allegations made against DOE 1, there is no indication that Plaintiff was unaware of Nolan’s relation to the claim. There are no new facts or pleadings that would apply to Nolan under the DOE 1 distinction rather than the original. The proper procedure to reinstate Nolan would be to amend the complaint to reinstate Nolan as a named defendant.

Plaintiff states they added in Nolan as a DOE Defendant after learning of a contract that would give rise to potential liability; however, nothing in the complaint provides that this was linked with DOE 1. Plaintiff needs to amend the complaint to include Nolan as a named party, once again, rather than DOE 1. Nolan was dismissed without prejudice, meaning that after following proper procedure, there will be no barriers to Nolan being brought back in as a named defendant.

Based on the above, the Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Nolan Transportation Group, LLC’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED. Service of summons and the complaint on Nolan, as DOE 1, 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.