Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 24SMCV00675, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00675    Hearing Date: April 25, 2024    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

BACKGROUND

This is an unlawful detainer action.  Plaintiff Janet Farzan (“Landlord”) owns the property located at 1705 Carla Ridge Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210 (“Property”).  Landlord rented the Property to Defendant Thomas Latimer (“Tenant”) for $35,000 a month.  Tenant failed to pay rent.  This action ensued.   

A proof of service of the summons and complaint was filed with the Court which states Tenant was personally served on March 7, 2024. 

This hearing is on Tenant’s motion to quash service of summons.  Tenant argues that contrary to the proof of service, he was not personally served.  Rather, the summons and complaint were attached to the front door of the Property, and he never received a copy of the documents by mail.  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 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 did not file a proof of service from a registered process server.  Instead, Plaintiff filed a proof of service on Judicial Council form POS-040 which prominently states “Do not use this form to show service of a summons and complaint …”.  Given the use of the improper form and Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to this motion to quash, the Court grants Tenant’s motion to quash service of summons. 

CONCLUSION

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

DATED:  April 25, 2024                                                       ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court