Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This case arises from a car accident.  Plaintiff Luis Roya was driving on the I-10 when he claims Defendant John Doe merged into his lane “without caution” and “in an unsafe manner”, hitting his car.  Then John Doe allegedly fled the scene of the accident.  Plaintiff has also sued three corporate entities, TKO Logistics LLC, Blackrock Logistics, Inc. and Equipment LLC, which he claims negligently maintained John Doe’s car or negligently entrusted the car to John Doe.   

The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) motor vehicle, (2) negligence, (3) misdemeanor hit and run, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress.   

A proof of service of the summons and complaint was filed with the Court which states Defendant Equipment LLC was personally served on February 5, 2025. 

This hearing is on California Equpment LLC’s motion to quash service of summons.  California Equipment, LLC maintains it is not affiliated with Equipment LLC, which was the defendant actually sued.  California Equipment LLC is a business based in Santa Barbara County, and has no contacts or connections to the Los Angeles area.  There was no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling. 

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, 140 Cal.App.4th at 413.)¿      

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff sued Equipment, LLC.  But it served an entirely different defendant, California Equipment LLC.  Accordingly, service was not effective, and the Court will quash service of summons.   

CONCLUSION 

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

 

DATED:  May 13, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court