Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

Plaintiff Michele Abraham is a tenant of 451 S. Oakhurst Drive, Unit #4, Beverly Hills, California 90212 (the “Property”).  Plaintiff Becky Vu is a tenant of Unit #3 at the Property.  They both claim they were subjected to substandard and uninhabitable living conditions.  They have sued Defendants 451 S. Oakhurst LLC, Kourosh Boudaie and Doris Boudaie as the owners or managers of the Property.    

This hearing is on Defendants’ motion to quash service of summons.  The individual defendants claim they were never served, while the corporate defendant claims that service was ineffective against it because the summons and complaint were left outside a building, and not with a person authorized to receive service or for substitute service, with a person who is apparently in charge of his or her office.   

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 

The individual defendants contend the Complaint was never served on them.  But there is no proof of service showing they were served.  Accordingly, there is nothing to quash. 

As to the corporate defendant, 451 Oakhurst, LLC, it argues that it was not properly served.  Service of process on a limited liability company, such as 451 S Oakhurst LLC, must comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 416.10, which requires delivery to a designated agent for service of process, a corporate officer, or another authorized representative.  If personal service is not possible, substitute service must comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20, which requires delivery to person in charge of the office and a mailing of the summons and complaint.  

Here, Plaintiffs’ Proof of Service claims the summons and complaint were posted outside the property, without delivery to any individual.  Defendant also declares it never received any mailing, which is required to effect substitute service.  Furthermore, the address listed on the Proof of Service is incorrect.  Unit 325 does not exist at the address.  (Boudaie Decl. paragraph 7.)  

Plaintiffs claims Defendants waived service via email.  But for waiver to be effective, the Code of Civil Procedure requires that a plaintiff to send a defendant a Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt, and the defendant must complete, sign, and return the acknowledgment form. (Code of Civil Procedure 415.30.) Only then is service deemed complete. (Id.) An email, even one expressing willingness to waive service, does not satisfy these statutory requirements. (Id.) 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant 451 Oakhurst LLC’s motion to quash service of summons and DENIES the individual defendants’ motion as premature. 

 

DATED: May 21, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court