Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case 22SMCV01128 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV01128, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01128 Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling
Xenon Investment Corp. v. Garrett Bellrios, LLC, Case No. 22SMCV01128
Hearing Date December 8, 2022
Defendants Garrett Bellrios’ Motion to Quash

Xenon Investment Corp. seeks to recover unpaid rent allegedly owed by Garret Bellrios and Garret Bellrios, LLC. The Bellrios defendants makes this special appearance to quash service of the complaint and summons, arguing the summons and complaint were served at the wrong location and were not conformed copies.

Substituted service may be accomplished by leaving a copy of a complaint and summons at the defendant’s usual place of business. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §415.20. Courts do not require strict compliance with the statutes governing service of process; substantial compliance is sufficient. Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 295, 313.

According to the proof of service, the Bellrios defendants were substitute-served at 1106 N. La Cienega Boulevard, Suite 206, West Hollywood, CA, 90069. Bellrios states this is not his usual place of business, and neither he nor Garrett Bellrios, LLC occupies the location. Bellrios declaration ¶3. Bellrios states the address is subleased, implicitly confirming he is the primary tenant. Id. The Bellrios defendants also argue the version of the complaint and summons served does not conform with the version of the document filed by the court, missing the case number, the judge’s name and department. Motion pg. 4, exhibit 1.

In opposition, Xenon states the documents were served at the address that is the subject of its action for breach of lease. Xenon states, based on Bellrios’ representations and the terms of the lease, it reasonably believed the address was still Bellrios’ primary place of business. Id. Xenon concedes the document served was not a conformed copy but points out the missing information identified was included in a notice of case management conference issued by the court to Bellrios.

As strict compliance with discovery statutes is not required, the evidence indicates service was completed at a location still leased by the Bellrios defendants, even if they no longer occupy the property. Further, the papers were accepted by Chris Santos, defendants’ business partner and subtenant. Bellrios decl. ¶3, Mehta declaration ¶¶3-9. These facts, taken together, demonstrate the address is a valid location for service. Bellrios has constructive notice of this action and the allegations against him. Xenon substantially complied with the requirements of the service statute, which is sufficient for the court to exercise jurisdiction. DENIED. Defendants to answer within 15 days.