Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 23SMCV03756, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03756    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

BACKGROUND

This case arises from a car accident.  On August 11, 2021, Plaintiffs Tia Brooks, Maura Brooks and Michael Jacobs-Sierra were at a complete stop when their car was hit by Defendant Matthew Moore.  Plaintiffs claim they sustained numerous and severe injuries as a result of the accident. 

This hearing is on Defendant’s motion to quash.  Defendant argues that contrary to the proof of service, he was not properly served.  Defendant argues that he is the only person living at the service address; he was at work in Orange County when the service was purportedly effected, and he does not know the person upon whom substitute service was allegedly made.  Accordingly, substitute service on him was ineffective under Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b) and § 416.90.  There was no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling. 

DISCUSSION

“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 the 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, 140 Cal.App.4th at 413.)      

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not properly complied with the requirements for substitute service.  The Court need not reach this issue because Defendant has made a general appearance by filing an answer on October 25, 2024, before he filed the motion to quash.  “A general appearance by a party is equivalent to personal service of summons.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.50, subd. (a).  “A general appearance operates as a consent to jurisdiction of the person, dispensing with the requirement of service of process, and curing defects in service”.  (Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Sparks Construction, Inc. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1145.)  An answer is an appearance.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1014.)  Thus, Defendant made a general appearance in advance of challenging the service of the summons and complaint, and in so doing, Defendant voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court.  (Robbins v. King (Nov. 3, 2023) 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 101194 at *4; Miralda v. Heng Sheng (Aug. 4, 2017) 2017 Cal. Super. LEXIS 84419 at *1; Li v. Shi (Aug. 27, 2021) 2021 Cal. Super. LEXIS 26495 at *1.)

CONCLUSION

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Matthew Moore’s motion to quash service of summons.    

DATED:  December 6, 2024                                ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court