Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This case arises from a car accident.  Plaintiff American States Preferred Insurance Company issued a policy (the “Policy”) to non-party David Taban (the “Insured”).  The Policy covered the Insured for collision damages.  Plaintiff claims Defendant Nduka O. Ukoha was negligently operating his car when it collided with the Insured’s car.  As a result, Plaintiff paid Insured’s claim for property damages in the amount of $57,649.24, and is now subrogated to all rights of Insured against Defendant. 

This action ensued.  Plaintiff sues Defendant for a single claim of subrogation.  The proof of service shows Defendant was substitute served on October 19, 2024 at 3918 W. 242nd Street, Torrance, California 90505.  The summons and complaint were left with Jazmin “Doe” who declined to provide her full name.  “Jazmin” is described as “HISPANIC, female, 35+ yrs old, 5’ 6” tall, 180 lbs., BLACK hair.”      

This hearing is on Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons.  Defendant argues that contrary to the proof of service, he was not properly served.  Defendant argues that he does not live or work at the service address, and he is not acquainted with “Jazmin”, the person upon whom service was purportedly effected.  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 the 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 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not properly complied with the requirements for substitute service.  The Court agrees. 

Section 415.20, subdivision (b) states: “If a copy of the summons and of the complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served as specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and of the complaint at such person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, … in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, … at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint (by first- class mail, postage prepaid) to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and of the complaint were left. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.” 

Here, Defendant maintains that the service address was not his residence or place of business.  (Ukoha-Ajike Decl. ¶ 3.)  He attests he has never lived or worked in Torrance, and he does not maintain a mailing address in Torrance.  (Id. ¶2.)  He also declares that he is not acquainted with “Jazmin”, the woman described in the proof of service.  (Id. ¶3.)  Plaintiff offers no contrary declaration.    

Given Defendant’s declaration, the requirements for substitute service have not been met. First, the attempts to personally serve Defendant at the service address do not meet the requirement of reasonable diligence because Defendant did not live or work at the service address.  Second, the summons and complaint were not left at Defendant’s dwelling house, usual place of abode or usual place of business.  Defendant maintains the service address is neither his home nor work address.  Third, the summons and complaint were not left with a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of Defendant’s office or place of business.  Defendant does not know the person on whom service was effected.   

CONCLUSION 

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

 

DATED:  January 10, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court