Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This action arises from a failure to pay a credit card debt.  Defendant Shavaugn R. Sierras opened a credit card account with Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.  Defendant failed to pay amounts due under the card, totaling $25,236.06.  The operative complaint alleges common counts for open book account and account stated.   

This hearing is on Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons.  Defendant argues that contrary to the proof of service, he was not personally served.  No opposition was 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 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 

Plaintiff filed a proof of service from a registered process server.  The proof of service shows that Defendant was served at 11805 Iowa Ave Apt 5, Los Angeles, California 90025-3797.  Defendant concedes that is his home address.  (Sierras Decl. ¶2.)  The proof of service also provides a description of Defendant as a “black-haired black male, 25-35 years of age, 5'8"-5'10" tall and weighing 160-180 lbs.”  Defendant does not dispute this description accurately describes his race, age, height and weight.       

Evidence Code section 647 provides that a registered process server’s declaration of service establishes a rebuttable presumption of proper service.  (See also Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795 (filing of proof of service that complies with the applicable statutory requirements creates a rebuttable presumption of proper service).) 

Defendant rebuts that presumption by filing a declaration attesting that he was not personally served.  Instead, he claims he found the summons and complaint on the floor at the bottom of the stairwell to his apartment.  (Sierras Decl. ¶3.)  Plaintiff has filed no opposition, and therefore, it does not contest Defendant’s version of events.  Because Defendant was not personally served, the service of summons is defective.     

CONCLUSION 

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

 

DATED:  October 20, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court