Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV28506, Date: 2024-05-21 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

Specially Appearing Defendants Selena Marie Gomez’s and July Moon Productions’ unopposed motion to quash service of summons is granted.

Specially Appearing Defendants Selena Marie Gomez (“Gomez”) and July Moon Productions (“July Moon”) (collectively, “specially Appearing Defendants”) make a special appearance for this Court to quash service of the summons and complaint in this action on the grounds Plaintiff Muhammed Umair Nabeel (“Nabeel”) (“Plaintiff”) has failed to properly serve Specially Appearing Defendants, and the Court accordingly lacks personal jurisdiction over them. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §418.10(a)(1).)

On November 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint. On December 16, 2023, Plaintiff mailed the summons and complaint from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to Richard H. Feldstein (“Feldstein”) at 10960 Wilshire Blvd, 5th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90024. (12/20/23 Proof of Service.) Plaintiff filed a proof of service for the Complaint on December 20, 2023, indicating that he served Feldstein by mail.

On January 12, 2024, Specially Appearing Defendants filed the instant motion. As of the date of this hearing Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Specially Appearing Defendant filed a reply, which is effectively a notice of non-opposition, on May 14, 2024.

“A defendant, on or before the day of his or her time to plead . . . may serve and file a notice of motion . . . [t]o quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (C.C.P. §418.10(a)(1).) By filing such motion, “a defendant makes a special appearance for the narrow purpose of contesting personal jurisdiction where the summons is defective.” (Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 393.)

“California is a jurisdiction which in general requires strict statutory compliance with requirements for service of original process.” (In re Abrams (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 685, 693-694.) “Until statutory requirements are satisfied, the Court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant.” (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 809.)

“In the absence of a voluntary submission to the authority of the court, compliance with the statutes governing service of process is essential to establish that court’s personal jurisdiction over a defendant.” (Floveyer International, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 793; see also Calvert v. Al Binali (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 954, 961 [“To establish personal jurisdiction, it is essential to comply with the statutory procedures for service of process.”].) “When a defendant challenges that jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160, internal quotations omitted.)

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b) provide that a summons and complaint must be served on each defendant and a proof of service on each defendant must be filed with the court within 60 days after the complaint is filed. Proof of such service must be made by affidavit of the person making the service “showing the time, place, and manner of service” and including facts showing service was made in accordance with California law. (C.C.P. §§417.10(a), 417.30.) Proof of personal service must be made on a form adopted by the Judicial Counsel. (Id. § 417.10(f).)

“A summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served.” (C.C.P. §415.10.) “‘[P]ersonal service,’ generally speaking, means the actual delivery of the process to the defendant in person . . . .” (Wilson v. Eddy (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 613, 617.) Personal delivery is the “preferred way to serve a defendant” because it “is the most likely to ensure actual notice to the defendant.” (Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Ham (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 330, 336.)

To effectuate service by mail under C.C.P. §415.30, the summons and complaint must be mailed to the person to be served along with a prepaid return envelope and two copies of the notice and acknowledgment provided for under the same rule. The notice must inform the defendant that unless she signs and returns the acknowledgment within 20 days, she will be liable for further expenses incurred in completing service by some other method. (C.C.P. §415.30(b).) Even when this method is used correctly, the plaintiff’s mailing of the required papers alone does not accomplish service; service is not deemed complete until the defendant signs the acknowledgment form and thereby consents to service in this manner. (C.C.P. §415.30(c).) Therefore, even if the requisite notice and acknowledgment copies are duly provided, a defendant who refuses or otherwise fails to sign the provided acknowledgment form still has not been served. (C.C.P. §415.30(d).)

Here, Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to demonstrate he served the summons and complaint in the mail to the named Defendants with the required notice and acknowledgment, and that such forms were signed by Defendants or anyone on their behalf. (Decl. of Feldstein ¶3.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s purported service is ineffectual as to both Specially Appearing Defendants.

Plaintiff has also violated even the most basic rule of service of process by attempting to serve the papers himself. C.C.P. §414.10 provides: “A summons may be served by any person who is at least 18 years of age and not a party to the action.” Under penalty of perjury, Plaintiff signed the filed proof of service declaring that he conducted the mailing and that he is “at least 18 years of age, not a party to this action, and . . . a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took place.” (12/20/23 Proof of Service.) Because Plaintiff is a party to this action, cannot have effected service himself.

Further, there is no filing on the docket for the instant matter demonstrating Plaintiff attempted to serve Specially Appearing Defendants by substituted service. The pleadings sent to the address indicated on the proof of service were mailed, not left by a process server as required under C.C.P. §415.20. Further, as to substituted service under §415.20(b), the only filing Plaintiff has made regarding attempts to serve Defendant Gomez by sheriff service on December 27, 2023, at 4600 Encino Avenue, Encino, CA 91316, where Defendant Gomez was not found, and the documents to be served were the civil case cover sheet addendum and a statement of location, not the Complaint or Summons. (1/16/24 Proof of Service – No Service.)

Specially Appearing Defendants’ motion to quash service of summons is granted.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court