Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21SMCV01522, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01522    Hearing Date: November 7, 2022    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

8950 Sunset Blvd, Inc. v. Burt, Case No. 21SMCV01522

Hearing date November 7, 2022

Cross-Defendant Mohammed Al-Marri’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons by Publication

On September 15, 2021 plaintiff 8950 Sunset Blvd. sued defendant Burt for: (1) breach of oral contract; (2) breach of the duty of loyalty; (3) violation of Labor Code section 2860; (4) conversion; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6) accounting. On November 4, 2021, defendant Burt answered the complaint and cross-complained against cross-defendant Mohammed Al-Marri, owner of 8950 Sunset, for breach of contract. The cross-complaint alleges Burt and Al-Marri had a romantic relationship and from 2013-21 Burt with Al-Marri at a home he owned. Burt alleges Al-Marri promised to provide for her financial security.

In reliance, Burt ended her career as a model, converted to Islam, provided household services and professional services to several businesses owned by Al-Marri. In November 2017, Al-Marri returned to Saudi Arabia. During this time, Al-Marri continued providing Burt financial support until June 2021, when Al-Marri’s company 8950 Sunset Blvd. evicted her.

On August 4, 2022, the court granted Burt’s application to serve the cross-complaint by publication. On August 30, 2022, she filed proof of service by publication in the Los Angeles Daily Journal. Cross-defendant moves to quash service of summons by publication.

“A summons may be served by publication if upon affidavit it appears to the satisfaction of the court in which the action is pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another manner specified in this article and…A cause of action exists against the party upon whom service is to be made or he or she is a necessary or proper party to the action.” Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50(a).

“The court shall order the summons to be published in a named newspaper, published in this state, that is most likely to give actual notice to the party to be served. If the party to be served resides or is located out of this state, the court may also order the summons to be published in a named newspaper outside this state that is most likely to give actual notice to that party. The order shall direct that a copy of the summons, the complaint, and the order for publication be forthwith mailed to the party if his or her address is ascertained before expiration of the time prescribed for publication of the summons. Except as otherwise provided by statute, the publication shall be made as provided by Section 6064 of the Government Code unless the court, in its discretion, orders publication for a longer period.” Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50(b).

Burt applied for service by publication and offered evidence of several attempts to serve or subserve cross-defendant at multiple locations. Rothman Decl. ¶¶ 6-11. Cross-complainant offered evidence that significant third-party discovery was conducted to find contact information for cross-defendant. Id. ¶¶ 12-15. Based on this information, the court was satisfied cross-defendant could not be served in another manner and granted the application for service by publication. Cross-complainant filed proof of service by publication in the Los Angeles Daily Journal for four consecutive weeks. Cross-complainant meets the statutory requirements for service by publication. See Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50(a-b); Gov. Code § 6064.

Cross-defendant argues he must be served in Saudi Arabia. The code has no such requirement, and the legal authority cited does not support this proposition. Burt made attempts to ascertain an address for cross-defendant in Saudi Arabia. Cross-defendant argues actual notice is not a legal substitute for proper service. But proper service was never effectuated in the cases cited by cross-defendant in support. Abers v. Rohs, (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 1199, 1206; Engebretson & Co. v. Harrison (1981) 125 Cal. App. 3d 436, 443 (1981). Here, proper service was effectuated, and cross-defendant has actual notice (demonstrated by the filing of this motion). Indeed, the company cross-defendant owns initiated this action against cross-complainant in the first place. Motion DENIED; a responsive pleading to be filed within 15 days.