Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV02336, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02336    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 68

Cass Asher vs. John Charles Graff, et al., Case No. 22STCV02336

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Moving Party: Defendant West End Group, Inc.  (No Opposition filed.)

MOVING PARTY’S POSITION

            Defendant West End Group, Inc., (West End Group) filed this motion to quash service of summons by special appearance based on the following: (1) a person who is not a registered process server made an alleged substituted service on a clerk at a company that maintains mailboxes, and (2) the person served was not the authorized agent or an agent or employee of the of the authorized agent (meaning that the person served had no relationship to West End Group).

            The Proof of Service of Summons filed by Plaintiff Cass Asher (Plaintiff) shows that West End Group was served by a person who is not a registered process server and who served a copy of the Summons and Complaint on a person simply identified as “Eric Jo.”. The location where the person was served is a business that houses mailboxes. West End Group maintains a mailbox at that business. However, according to West End Group, no one at that business is authorized to accept service of process on its behalf. West End Group has an authorized agent for service of process, and it is a different person at a different location. (Goalwin Decl., p. 3.) There is no indication that the process server made any attempt to serve West End Group at the proper service address prior to leaving the Summons and Complaint with Eric at the mailbox business. (Goalwin Decl., p. 4.)

            Previously, this Court granted another motion to quash service of summons filed by West End Group when Plaintiff failed to serve the proper person. West End Group is once again alleging improper service.

ANALYSIS

            “A summons and complaint may be served on a corporation by delivering a copy to the agent for service of process, president, vice-president, secretary, other officer, general manager, or other person authorized to receive service of process.” (CCP § 416.10.)

            In this instance, none of those people were served. Plaintiff’s unregistered process server served an employee of a business that maintains mailboxes. The employee had no relationship or affiliation with West End Group. This is not an effective method of service. There is no indication that Plaintiff’s process server made any attempt to serve West End Group at the proper location or any attempt to serve the proper persons.

            Accordingly, service was improper, and West End Group’s motion to quash service of summons is granted.

ORDER

1.      Defendant West End Group’s motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED.