Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This is an unlawful detainer action.  Plaintiff DK Broadway LLC is the owner of the real property located at 500 Broadway Apt 415, Santa Monica, CA 90401 (the “Premises”).  Plaintiff rented the Premises to Defendant Aleksandra Bulgach pursuant to a written lease agreement (the “Lease”).  Defendant failed to pay rent.  Plaintiff served a 3 day notice to pay rent or quit.  Defendant did not comply with the notice. 

This action ensued.  Plaintiff seeks possession of the Premises, unpaid rent, attorneys’ fees and costs and forfeiture of the Lease.  A proof service of summons and complaint was filed with the Court, stating that Defendant was personally served on January 27, 2025.   

This hearing is on Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons.  Defendant claims she was not personally served.  Instead, the complaint was left between her screen and front door, which she argues is not effective service.  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 

Defendant contends she was not personally served.  Rather, the summons and complaint were left between her front door and screen.  Once Defendant challenges service, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to prove that there was effective service.  As Defendant’s motion to quash is unopposed, Plaintiff fails to meet its burden.   

By¿failing¿to¿file¿an¿opposition, Plaintiff¿concedes¿the arguments made in the motion. It is axiomatic the¿failure¿to challenge a contention in a brief results in the concession of that argument.¿(DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sup. Ct.¿(2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566¿(“By failing to argue the contrary, plaintiffs concede this issue”);¿Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 23, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 507, 529¿(“failure to address the threshold question... effectively concedes that issue and renders its remaining arguments moot”);¿Glendale Redevelopment Agency v. Parks¿(1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1424¿(issue is impliedly conceded by failing to address it).)  As such, the Court grants the motion to quash. 

CONCLUSION 

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

 

DATED: February 26, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court