Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV03353, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03353    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Whitaker v. Sun, Moon & Truth, Inc., Case No. 23SMCV03353

Hearing date January 30, 2024

Defendant Sun, Moon & Truth, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Plaintiff Whitaker visited a restaurant owned by defendant Sun, Moon and Truth and alleges lack of compliance with disability access laws. Defendant moves to quash service of summons. Plaintiff filed no opposition.

“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 serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).

Where service is challenged, the burden is on plaintiff to prove effective service. “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 v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413; see also Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160. However, a proof of service containing a declaration from a registered process server invokes a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence of the facts stated in the return. Evid. Code, § 647; see American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390.

Plaintiff served by personal service and substitute service. Effecting service on a corporation, like here, requires delivery of summons and complaint to some person on behalf of the corporation. Code Civ. Proc., § 416.10; Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1437. When the defendant is a corporation, the “person to be served” is one of the individuals specified in section 416.10 as agent for service of process.

Strict compliance is not required. Dill v. Berquist Constr. Co., supra, 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1436–37. 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 ....” ’ ” Ibid. Thus, substantial compliance is sufficient. Ibid.

According to both proofs of service, plaintiff’s registered process server served Kanpirom Pankum (aka “Gunn Pankum”) on November 17, 2023. Kanpirom Pankum is the agent for service of process for Sun, Moon & Truth, Inc. Decl. Pankum, ¶ 1.

Defendant challenges service on the grounds that it was not Kanpiriom Pankum who was served, but server Tiffany West. See Decl. West, ¶ ¶ 3, 4. Pankum states she was not served, but learned that server West received the documents. Decl. Pankum ¶ ¶ 2-3. Though Pankum’s declaration supports that she received actual notice, this is not sufficient. Plaintiff has the burden of proving proper service. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. GRANTED. Service is quashed.