Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCV14998, Date: 2025-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14998    Hearing Date: January 31, 2025    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants SBDLTA 1, LLC’s; SBDLTA 2, LLC’s; SBDLTA 3, LLC’s; SBDLTA 4, LLC’s; and Greystar California, Inc.’s, and Specially Appearing Defendant Lea Kim’s motion to quash Plaintiffs Larisha Perkins’ and Isaiah Sampson’s service of summons is denied as moot.

Defendants SBDLTA 1, LLC (“SBDLTA 1”); SBDLTA 2, LLC’s (“SBDLTA 2”); SBDLTA 3, LLC (“SBDLTA 3”); SBDLTA 4, LLC’s (“SBDLTA 4”); Greystar California, Inc. (“Greystar”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) and Specially Appearing Defendant Lea Kim (“Kim”) (“Specially Appearing Defendant”) make a special appearance for this Court to quash service of Plaintiffs Larisha Perkins’ (“Perkins”) and Isaiah Sampson’s (“Sampson”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) summons to Kim for lack of personal jurisdiction over them.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§415.10, 415.20(b), 418.10(a)(1), 435.5(a); Cal. Const., art. I, §1.)

Background

On or about June 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants and Kim for various causes of action relating to the habitability of the apartment unit they rented, located at 650 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California.

On or about December 5, 2023, Plaintiffs purported to serve the summons and Complaint on Kim by substituted service on Kim’s former place of employment, Greystar.  Plaintiffs thereafter filed a proof of substituted service, having deemed to have effected service of Kim at Greystar’s offices located at 620 Newport Center Drive, 15th Floor, Newport Beach, CA 92660.  Plaintiffs filed their Proof of Service by Substituted Service on December 20, 2023, as to both Plaintiffs.  

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on December 26, 2023.

Defendants and Kim filed the instant motion on January 7, 2025.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition on January 15, 2025.  On January 16, 2025, the Court granted moving parties’ ex parte application to advance the hearing of this motion.  At the hearing of the ex parte application, the Court raised the issue of Plaintiff’s having filed a First Amended Complaint, rendering the motion moot.  Despite this, Defendants and Kim filed a reply on January 23, 2025.

Motion to Quash

Once Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s complaint became moot.  (JKC3H8 v. Colton (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 477.)  Plaintiff thereafter had to personally serve Kim.  (Engebretson & Co. v. Harrison (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 436, 442-443.)  Plaintiff’s counsel conceded as much at the hearing on the ex parte application to advance the hearing of this motion, acknowledging that service of the First Amended Complaint on Kim by mail was inadequate. 

Therefore, Moving Defendants’ motion to quash Plaintiff’s service of the complaint is denied as moot.

Conclusion

Defendants’ and Specially Appearing Defendant’s motion to quash Plaintiffs’ service of the Summons and Complaint on Kim is denied as moot.

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:  January _____, 2025