Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV02683, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 23CHCV02683    Hearing Date: March 29, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

Motion filed: 11/3/23

MOVING PARTY: specially appearing Defendant North Hills Village Apts., LLC (“North Hills” or “specially appearing Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

NOTICE: ok 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court quashing service of the summons and complaint upon Defendant North Hills.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from an incident where Plaintiff allegedly fell due to damaged flooring improperly maintained by Defendant at 15115 Parthenia Ave. #235, North Hills, CA 91343 (“Subject Premises”).

On September 6, 2023, Plaintiff Luis Pullido (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint against Defendants North Hills and Does 1-50, alleging negligence and premises liability.

On November 3, 2023, specially appearing Defendant North Hills filed the instant Motion to Quash Service.

No opposing papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 subdivision (a) provides, “A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.”

Until statutory requirements are satisfied, the court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant. (Honda Motor Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048; Schering Corp. v. Superior Court. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 737, 741.) A defendant is under no duty to respond in any way to a defectively served summons. It makes no difference that defendant had actual knowledge of the action. Such knowledge does not dispense with statutory requirements for service of summons. (Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1457, 1466; Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808 [notice does not substitute for proper service].)

“When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process ‘the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) A proof of service containing a declaration from a registered process server invokes a presumption of valid service.  (See American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390; see also Evid. Code § 647.) This presumption is rebuttable. (See id.) The party seeking to defeat service of process must present sufficient evidence to show that the service did not take place as stated. (See Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1428 (Yadegar); cf. People v. Chavez (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1471, 1483 [“If some fact be presumed, the opponent of that fact bears the burden of producing or going forward with evidence sufficient to overcome or rebut the presumed fact.”].) Merely denying service took place without more is insufficient to overcome the presumption.  (See Yadegar, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at 1428.)

A.    Motion to Quash Service

North Hills moves to quash service of the summons and complaint by Plaintiff on the basis that it was improperly served. (Mot., at 3.)

Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service on December 4, 2023, and a second Proof of Service on January 18, 2024. In both Proof of Service, Plaintiff claims that substituted service was made on November 28, 2023, by leaving the documents with John Doe. (12/4/23 Proof of Service, ¶ 5b, 1/18/24 Proof of Service, ¶ 5b.) Plaintiff asserts that copies of the documents were also served by mail to North Hills on December 1, 2023 (12/4/23 Proof of Service by Mail), whereas the January 18, 2024, Proof of Service by Mail indicates that copies of the documents were served by mail to “Anil Mehta, authorized agent for service of process,” on October 10, 2023.

Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10 provides, in part, that “A summons may be served on a corporation by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint by any of the following methods: (a) To the person designated as agent for service of process[.] (b) To the president, chief executive officer, or other head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or chief financial officer, a general manager, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process. (c) If the corporation is a bank, to a cashier or assistant cashier or to a person specified in subdivision (a) or (b). (d) If authorized by any provision in Section 1701, 1702, 2110, or 2111 of the Corporations Code (or Sections 3301 to 3303, inclusive, or Sections 6500 to 6504, inclusive, of the Corporations Code, as in effect on December 31, 1976, with respect to corporations to which they remain applicable), as provided by that provision.” 

Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20 subdivision (a) sets forth, in part, that “In lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served as specified in Section 416.10, 416.20, 416.30, 416.40, or 416.50, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address, other than a United States Postal Service post office box, with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.” (Underlines added.)

Here, North Hills argues that personal service to “Anil Mehta, Agent for Service” is impossible because on the day of the alleged service, its Agent for Service was Mr. Ritesh Desai (Mot., at 3, Ex. “B”) instead of Anil Mehta, who had died prior to the purported service. (Mot., at 3, Desai Decl., ¶ 5.)  Mr. Desai has been listed as the appropriate Agent for Service with the Secretary of State since at least August 17, 2023, predating the purported service of process. (Desai Decl., ¶ 5.)

Furthermore, North Hills contends that Plaintiff’s substituted service does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20 subdivision (a), which mandates both “leaving a copy of [documents] ... in the office” and “mailing a copy of [documents] to the person [to whom the documents were left].” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (a).) North Hills argues the copies of documents were improperly mailed to North Hills, a corporation. (Mot., at 3.) Even though Plaintiff filed a second Proof of Service on January 18, 2024, which explicitly lists “Anil Mehta” as the person to whom the mailing was addressed, this does not establish compliance as the addressee is a deceased person.

Consequently, the Court finds that North Hills has sufficiently rebutted the presumption of proper service as established by the Proof of Service filed by Plaintiff. The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service. (See Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) However, Plaintiff has not met the burden as no responses have been filed by Plaintiff. Since Plaintiff does not oppose the instant Motion, and as such, fails to demonstrate the service of process was made in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 416.10 or 415.20.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Quash Service.

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Quash Service is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.