Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This is an unlawful detainer action.  Defendant Tamila Didyk is a tenant at a residential property located at 1519 6th Street, #208, Santa Monica, California (the “Premises”).  Defendant PR SM Amalfi, LLC is the Landlord.   

This hearing is on Tenant’s motion to quash service of summons.  Tenant argues that she was not properly served because the summons and complaint were served by substitute service on a male houseguest, when there were no prior attempts to serve her personally.  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 

Landlord has not filed a proof of service signed by a registered process server.  Tenant argues that Landlord served her by substitute service, but the requirements of such service were not met.  The Court agrees.   

Substitute service may be made on an individual defendant, but only if good faith efforts to effect personal service are first attempted.  If the personal service on the individual defendant cannot be effected “with reasonable diligence”, service may be made by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at defendant’s “dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box,” in the presence of a “competent member of the household” or person “apparently in charge” of the office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years old “who shall be informed of the contents thereof.”  A copy of the summons and complaint must then be sent by postage prepaid first class mail to defendant at the place where the papers were left.  Code Civ. Proc. §415.20(b).  

Tenant claims there were no prior attempts to personally serve her, and therefore, Landlord could not have effected substitute service.  (Didyk Decl. ¶4.)  Landlord is obligated to show reasonable diligence in trying to serve Tenant personally which Landlord cannot show because the Complaint was only filed the day prior to when it was left with the male houseguest.   (Id.)  Moreover, the summons and complaint were left with a houseguest who was only visiting and is not a member of Tenant’s household as required under the law.  (Id.)   

CONCLUSION 

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

 

DATED:  November 28, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court