Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV09930, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09930    Hearing Date: March 27, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On May 3, 2023, Plaintiff Alexander Khazai filed this action against numerous Defendants, asserting 16 causes of action arising from a business transaction. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to properly compensate him for his services.

            On November 20, 2023, Defendants Sammy Zablen and Sammy’s Warehouse filed a motion to quash service of summons for lack of proper service. The Court granted this motion on January 12, 2024. 

            On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, with an accompanying proof of substitute service filed on January 25, 2024.

            On February 15, 2024, Defendant Sammy Zablen filed the instant motion to quash service of summons on the grounds that the FAC was not properly served. Plaintiff filed his opposition on March 14, 2024. Defendant filed his reply on March 20, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he court in which an action is pending has jurisdiction over a party from the time summons is served on him as provided by Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10).” (Code Civ. Proc, § 410.50(a).) “[A] court acquires jurisdiction over a party by proper service of process or by that party's general appearance.” (In re Jennifer O. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 539, 547.) Actual notice of a lawsuit is not a substitute for proper service of process. (Abers v. Rohrs (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1206.) A defendant may serve and file a notice of motion to quash service of summons on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a).)

DISCUSSION

            “A summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10.) Alternatively, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the same location. (Id., § 415.20.)

            In granting the prior motion to quash, the Court found that substitute service could not be effectuated by merely leaving a copy of the summons and complaint on Defendant’s doorstep and then mailing it to that address. (Jan. 12, 2024 Order re Mtn. to Quash 2:13-21.) Rather, substitute service requires leaving the summons and complaint with a competent member of the household. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20.)

            This time, the proof of service filed on January 25, 2024 indicates that the summons and complaint were taped to the door of Defendant’s residence at 13906 Fiji Way, Marina del Rey, CA 90292. This is no different than leaving the summons and complaint at Defendant’s doorstep. Plaintiff admits that “service had not been properly effectuated.” (Opp. 2:25-26.) Plaintiff contends, however, that he remedied the error with a later proof of service, filed March 1, 2024. This proof of service indicates that the summons and complaint were left with Defendant’s brother-in-law at 1521 Reeves St., Los Angeles, CA 90035.

            The instant motion concerns the purported service at the Marina del Rey address. The second service performed at the Los Angeles address is not before the Court, and the Court does not reach the issue of whether that service was proper. Because Plaintiff admits that service was improper at the Marina del Rey address, the motion is granted.

CONCLUSION

            The motion to quash filed by Defendant Sammy Zablen is GRANTED.