Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 22SMCV01128, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01128    Hearing Date: January 10, 2023    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

BACKGROUND

            This is a landlord tenant dispute.  Plaintiff Xenon Investment Corp. (“Landlord”) leased to Defendant Garrett Bellrios, LLC (“Tenant”) a commercial property located at 1106 N. La Cienega Blvd, #206, West Hollywood, California (“Property”).  The lease was personally guaranteed by Defendant Garrett Bellrios (“Guarantor”).  Plaintiff is suing Defendants for unpaid rent.  In addition, Plaintiff alleges Tenant has illegally sublet a portion of the Property, without Landlord’s prior written consent, after Landlord expressly denied permission for the sublease following a review of the sublessee’s financial statements. 

This hearing is on Guarantor’s motion to quash summons.  Landlord has submitted a declaration indicating it was unable to serve Tenant (O’Neill Decl. ¶¶2-6), so Tenant has not made a special appearance or joined the motion.  Guarantor argues that service of process was ineffective because: (1) the place of service was not Defendant’s usual place of business and (2) the Summons and Complaint served were “not conformed” (i.e., not stamped by the Court) and were missing the case number, the judge’s name and the corresponding department. 

LEGAL STANDARD

“Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.”  (AO Alfa-Bank v. Yakovlev (2018) 21¿Cal.App.5th 189, 202.)  “To establish personal jurisdiction, compliance with statutory procedures for service of process is essential.”  (Kremerman v. White (2021). 71 Cal.App.5th 358, 371.) 

But the statutory requirements are to be liberally construed to uphold jurisdiction, rather than defeat it.  (Pasadena Medi-Center Assocs. v. Sup.Ct. (Houts) (1973) 9 Cal.3d 773, 778 (“The provisions of this chapter should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by the defendant, and in the last analysis the question of service should be resolved by considering each situation from a practical standpoint.”)

Defendant’s knowledge of the action does not dispense with statutory requirements for service of summons.  (Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1457, 1466.)  However, as long as the defendant receives actual notice of the lawsuit, substantial compliance with the Code provisions governing service of summons will generally be held sufficient.  (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 410-411 ( “It is well settled that strict compliance with statutes governing service of process is not required.  Rather, in deciding whether service was valid, the statutory provisions regarding service of process should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by the defendant.”).)

“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 move “to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her” that results from lack of proper service.  (Code of Civ. Proc. §418.10(a)(1).  A defendant has 30 days after the service of the summons to file a responsive pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc., §412.20(a)(3).)  

“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.) 

DISCUSSION

A plaintiff may serve a defendant through substitute service when it cannot be personally served with reasonable diligence. (Code Civ. Proc. §415.20(b).)  The plaintiff may effect substitute service of a summons and complaint by leaving a copy of the documents at the defendant’s “usual place of business” with a person at least 18 years old who is “apparently in charge of his or her office [or] place of business,” and thereafter mailing a copy of the documents to the same place. (Code Civ. Proc. §415.20(b).)

Here, Landlord served Guarantor at the Property and later mailed a copy of the summons and complaint to the Property.  Guarantor argues the Property is not his usual place of business because he subleased the Property to someone else.  There is no dispute that Guarantor in fact subleased a portion of the Property to someone else.  Indeed, that is one of the lease violations alleged in the Complaint.  However, Guarantor also told Landlord that the subtenant (Dr. Refresh) was his business partner.  (Mehta Decl. 8, Ex. 3 to Mehta Decl.)  Accordingly, Guarantor was continuing to do business at the Property, and it is his “usual place of business.”      

Guarantor next argues that the complaint and summons are “blank, when it references the case number, the judge’s name and the department hearing this matter.  Furthermore, the summons is also unconfirmed, it is not stamped by the Court and does not include any of the information the Court includes on the summons.”  (Motion at 4.)  Errors or omissions in a summons do not justify quashing service unless the party served has been misled or his substantial rights affected.  (Hershenson v. Hershenson (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 382, 385 (refusing to quash summons that failed to contain the number of the case, the department to which it was assigned, the date of its issuance and the name of the County Clerk's deputy who issued it).)  Guarantor has not shown he was misled or prejudiced in any way.  Indeed, along with the summons and complaint, Defendant was served with a Notice of Case Management Conference, which contained the case number and assigned department.  (Ex. 5 to Opp.)  Guarantor simply seizes on minutiae and has attempted to inflate their importance as a basis for avoiding the jurisdiction of this Court.  As Guarantor had actual notice of the summons and complaint, substantial compliance with the Code provisions governing service of summons is sufficient.   Landlord has shown substantial compliance.   

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to quash summons.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 10, 2023                                         ___________________________

                                                                                    Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court