Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00358, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00358    Hearing Date: January 8, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

ALLEGATIONS: 

This action stems from the malfunctioning of a water filtration system which was installed in a doctor’s office in Burbank, CA. Sentinel Insurance Company (“Sentinel”), the insurer for the office, seeks indemnification for the approximately $926,379.54 in damages caused by the leak of the filter. (Compl. ¶ 27.) Sentinel’s Complaint alleges the filter was provided by Archstone Distribution, LLC (“Archstone”) who in turn purchased the filter from Amazon.com. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Archstone alleges that the company who sold the filter through Amazon was Clean Sip LLC. (Cross-Compl. ¶ 9.) Archstone further alleges that EcoSoft SPC is the company who manufactured the malfunctioning filter. (Id.)

EcoSoft SPC and EcoSoft WaterSystems now specially appear and move to quash the service of process from Archstone.  These parties assert that service has not been properly rendered and that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them.

This matter originally came on for hearing on September 21, 2023. After hearing argument, the Court continued the matter such that jurisdictional discovery could commence and subsequent briefing could be provided by the parties. The Court, having review the subsequent briefing and the evidence obtained in jurisdictional discovery now rules as follows:

ANALYSIS: 

I.                LEGAL STANDARD 

A defendant, on or before the last day of her time to plead or within any further time that the court for good cause may allow, may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over her. (C.C.P. § 418.10(a); see Greener v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1028, 1036.) For a court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant, two elements are required: (1) there must be some basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant, i.e., defendant's consent, physical presence, domicile, or minimum contacts; and (2) service of summons must be proper. (Ziller Elecs. Lab. GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1229.)

A motion to quash service of summons can be used to challenge one or both elements of personal jurisdiction. (Id.) When the defendant makes a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant. (See id. at 1232-1233 [If a defendant files a motion to quash service of summons, the plaintiff has the burden to establish both elements of personal jurisdiction].) Thus, a plaintiff must file an opposition to defeat a motion to quash. (See Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 794 [defendant does not have to act on motion to quash until plaintiff makes prima facie showing of jurisdiction].) 

Further, such a motion must establish personal jurisdiction on any grounds challenged by the defendants; if the defendant alleges that there is no basis for personal jurisdiction and that service was improper, the plaintiff must establish both a basis for personal jurisdiction and proper service. (See Ziller, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at 1229.) The mere allegations of facts or allegations in an unverified complaint are insufficient to establish jurisdiction for these purposes. (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 145 Cal.App.4th 100, 100.)

II.              REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE & EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Archstone requests judicial notice of the California Secretary of State information for Down Town Wholesalers, Inc. and Clean Sip, LLC pursuant to Evidence Code § 452. Archstone’s request is granted.

Specially appearing parties’ evidentiary objections to the declaration of Michael Jenkins are OVERRULED.

III.            MERITS

Service Pursuant to Hague Convention

The initial moving papers by EcoSoft SPC and EcoSoft WaterSystems contested the validity of service pursuant to the Hague Service Convention. The Court determined that service on EcoSoft WaterSystems was insufficient but that the service on EcoSoft SPC was effective. Subsequent briefing on the matter presents no further argument on this front. As such, the Court’s previous reasoning remains intact and is produced below. 

Moving parties first argue that service has not been effectuated in accordance with the Hague Service Convention. EcoSoft SPC is located in Ukraine, and EcoSoft WaterSystems is located in Germany.

Ukraine has objected to Article 10 of the Hague Service Convention. Where a country has objected to Article 10 of the Hague Convention - service through the Central Authority is the only valid method of serving process abroad. (Hague Service Convention, T.I.A.S. No. 6638, 20 U.S.T. 361 (U.S. Treaty); Articles 2 through 10.)

EcoSoft SPC originally argued that no proof of service had been filed showing such service was effectuated on the Central Authority. After the motion was filed, Archstone filed a proof of service which showed service on the Central Authority for Ukraine on June 6, 2023. Accordingly, EcoSoft SPC’s motion to this end is moot.

No proof of service has been submitted regarding EcoSoft WaterSystems. As such, the motion to quash as to EcoSoft WaterSystems is GRANTED.

Personal Jurisdiction

EcoSoft SPC argues service should be quashed because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction.

Personal Jurisdiction in General

A California court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has “minimum contacts” with the state. (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268; Virtualmagic Asia, Inc. v. Fil-Cartoons, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 228, 238.) A defendant has minimum contacts if the quality and nature of its activity in the forum state (referred to as “contacts”) is such that it is reasonable and fair to require the defendant to conduct a defense in that state. (Pavlovich, supra, at 268; Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 221.)

There exists two types of personal jurisdiction: “general” (sometimes called “all-purpose”) jurisdiction and “specific” (sometimes called “case-linked”) jurisdiction. (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (2017) 582 U.S. 255, 262.)

In its opposition, Archstone argues in favor of both general and specific personal jurisdiction. The Court will analyze each of these arguments in turn.

General Jurisdiction

As with Moving Parties’ service arguments, no further argument was made regarding general jurisdiction in supplemental briefing. As such, the Court maintains that general jurisdiction has not been shown in this instance as EcoSoft SPC cannot be considered at home in California. The Court’s previous reasoning remains and is reiterated below.

Under a “general” jurisdiction analysis, nonresident defendants may be sued on causes of action unrelated to their activities within the state. (Cornelison v. Chaney (1976) 16 Cal.3d 143, 147.)

Only a “limited set” of affiliations with a forum state will render a defendant subject to general jurisdiction. “For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home” (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 US 117, 137.)

Here, Archstone cannot allege general personal jurisdiction as traditionally constructed. EcoSoft SPC cannot be considered “at home” under any of the traditional metrics espoused in Daimler. Instead, Archstone argues EcoSoft SPC is subject to general personal jurisdiction by virtue of an alter ego or agency theory. Archstone argues Clean Sip LLC, a cross-defendant in this action, is an alter ego of EcoSoft SPC operating within the United States.

California courts have held that often mere ownership of a subsidiary does not subject a nonresident parent company to general personal jurisdiction based on the subsidiary’s forum contacts. (Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 540; DVI v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1092.) However, in several courts they have held or suggested that principles of “alter ego” and “agency,” including the “representative services” doctrine, can justify the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. (Sonora Diamond, supra, at 537-543; DVI, supra, at 1093-1094.)  To pierce the corporate veil between a parent and subsidiary under the alter ego theory, the plaintiff must show: (1) that there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the parent and subsidiary that the separate personalities of the entities no longer exists; and (2) that failure to disregard the corporate forms would result in fraud or injustice. (Sonora Diamond, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at 539.) When the corporate form is used to perpetrate a fraud, circumvent a statute, or accomplish some other wrongful or inequitable purpose, the courts will ignore the corporate entity and deem the corporation’s acts to be those of the persons or organizations actually controlling the corporation, in most instances the equitable owners. Alter ego is an extreme remedy, used sparingly. (Id.)

Archstone provides an Asset Purchase Agreement between Andrii Mitchenko (Chief Executive Director of EcoSoft SPC) and Down Town Wholesalers, Inc. as Exhibit E to its opposition. This Asset Purchase Agreement is also between Clean Sip, LLC. Andrii Mitchenko is listed as the Member/Manager of Clean Sip, LLC. (Id.) This Purchase Agreement references a Distribution Agreement between Down Town Wholesalers and EcoSoft SPC. (Id. Exh E, p. 6.) Archstone generally argues that alter ego may be found because EcoSoft SPC and Clean Sip, LLC share an executive in Mitchenko. Archstone also argues that the Asset Purchase Agreement appears shows Clean Sip LLC conveying rights of EcoSoft SPC, which it could not do unless they were the same corporate entity.

In reply, EcoSoft SPC submits the declaration of Mitchenko. Mitchenko states Clean Sipp LLC was incorporated in New York and dissolved in 2020. (Mitchenko Supp. Decl. ¶ 2.) He also states that EcoSoft SPC and Clean Sip were separate entities and did not share leadership, bank accounts, or employees. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.)

The Court finds Archstone has not made a sufficient showing to allow a finding of alter ego. While Archstone’s allegations certainly indicate an overlap between EcoSoft SPC and Clean Sip, LLC, they are far away from establishing that the entities must be legally treated as one. Archstone has made no showing as to ownership of the corporate entities, that Clean Sip LLC was utilized for a wrongful purpose, or that to treat the entities as separate would result in fraud or injustice. 

Specific Jurisdiction

The lion’s share of argument upon supplemental briefing revolves around specific jurisdiction, which the Court initially indicated was appropriately exercised in this case. The Court having read the supplemental briefing of the parties remains of the opinion that the tenant of specific jurisdiction are satisfied here, though the Court’s reasoning has changed.

A court can exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if (1) the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the forum's benefits and protections and (2) the cause of action relates to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum, and (3) the exercise of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice. (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 269.) The contacts for specific jurisdiction are those that existed when the plaintiff's cause of action arose. (Strasner, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at 226.)

Purposeful Availment

To establish minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction, the plaintiff must show that the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in California to involve its benefits and protections. (See Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int'l (9th Cir. 2017) 874 F.3d 1064, 1068; Bristol-Myers supra, 1 Cal.5th 783, 799-800.) In this analysis, (1) only the defendant's contacts with California are considered, not the defendant's contacts with persons who reside there, (2) the defendant's contacts must have been purposeful rather than random, fortuitous, or attenuated, and (3) the defendant must have sought some benefit by availing itself of the jurisdiction. (See Walden v. Fiore (2014) 571 U.S. 277, 285-286; Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 474-475; Vons Cos., supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 446, 458.)

Archstone argues that EcoSoft SPC has purposefully availed itself of the forum by virtue of Ecosoft’s extensive use of the ports of Los Angeles to ship its products, EcoSoft SPC’s shipping of its products to Los Angeles International Airport, and the shipment of EcoSoft SPC products to Los Angeles through the port of Houston. (Archstone Exh. C.) Archstone further argues that EcoSoft SPC has availed itself of the forum by virtue of its extensive dealings with California based company Down Town Wholesalers, Inc. (“Down Town”) Archstone states that EcoSoft SPC has used Downtown Wholesalers as the exclusive distributor for its products since 2019. (Archstone Exh. A., AM Deposition p. 75.) Archstone also attaches Distributor agreement with Down Town. (Archstone Exh. A, AM Depo Exh. 8 at p.8.)

To establish minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction, the plaintiff must show that the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in California to involve its benefits and protections. (See Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int'l (9th Cir. 2017) 874 F.3d 1064, 1068; Bristol-Myers supra, 1 Cal.5th 783, 799-800.) In this analysis, (1) only the defendant's contacts with California are considered, not the defendant's contacts with persons who reside there, (2) the defendant's contacts must have been purposeful rather than random, fortuitous, or attenuated, and (3) the defendant must have sought some benefit by availing itself of the jurisdiction. (See Walden v. Fiore (2014) 571 U.S. 277, 285-286; Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 474-475; Vons Cos., supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 446, 458.)

The Court is satisfied with Archstone’s showings that EcoSoft SPC purposefully availed itself of the State of California. It is clear that EcoSoft SPC desired to sell its products in the state and has taken substantial steps in actualizing that desire. EcoSoft SPC maintains an active distribution agreement with a California company and regularly sends its water filtration products into the state for sale.

The Court also notes that the point of purposeful availment is absent from EcoSoft SPC’s supplemental briefing, indicating a concession to the merits of Archstone’s argument in this regard, even without any putative concession there facts support purposeful availment.

Relatedness 

The far more contentious argument in the parties’ subsequent briefing is whether EcoSoft SPC’s availment is related to Archstone’s claims against them. Archstone claims that an EcoSoft SPC water filter, purchased through Amazon seller Clean Sip LLC was the source of the damage. Archstone also claims that EcoSoft SPC manufactured this specific water filtration system. It is undisputed that the filter at issue in this case is the “FMV3ECOUS” Stage 3 water filtration system. EcoSoft SPC does not dispute that it manufactured this water filter, however they do state that this filter was never sold in the state of California.

EcoSoft SPC argues that the relatedness prong of specific jurisdiction is not met here because Archstone cannot show that the FMV3ECOUS system was ever sold in the State of California. EcoSoft SPC argues that the case law requires the Court to distinguish between EcoSoft SPC general selling of water filters and EcoSoft SPC’s selling of the FMV3ECOUS filter specifically. Essentially, EcoSoft SPC argues that their contacts with California are not related to this action unless they sold this specific model of filter.

Archstone argues the opposite, that EcoSoft SPC’s selling of any water filtration systems is sufficiently related to this cause of action for products liability. Archstone argues that the relatedness test is not meant to serve as a proxy for proximate cause and is instead a more generalized question of whether the products sold in the forum state relate to the products liability action.

The relatedness component of specific jurisdiction does not require the activity in the forum state to be the cause of action. (See Daimler Trucks North America LLC v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 946, 956, citing Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1017.)

In Ford, plaintiffs filed actions in Montana and Minnesota alleging defects with respect to two specific models of Ford vehicle, an Explorer and a Crown Victoria respectively. (Ford supra, 141 S.Ct. 1017 at 1023. Ford argues that specific jurisdiction was lacking as these particular vehicles were not designed, manufactured, or sold in the state of Montana or Minnesota and were only brought there after being sold in another state. (Id.) The Supreme Court rejected Ford’s argument finding that it conflated the role of causation and the test for relatedness. (Id. at 1025.) The Ford court stated ““The first half of the arise out of or relate to standard asks about causation; but the back half, after the or contemplates that some relationships will support jurisdiction without a causal showing.” (Id. at 1026, [internal quotations and citations omitted].) The Ford court noted that Ford’s availment to the states of Montana and Minnesota included wide ranging advertisement campaign encouraging the residents of those states to buy Ford vehicles, including Explorers and Crown Victorias. (Id. at 1028.) The Supreme Court also noted the wide range of Ford dealerships facilitating sales of Ford vehicles in those states. (Id.) The Supreme Court ultimately determined these contacts were sufficiently related to the products liability actions.

The Court notes that the ruling in Ford does reference a hypothetical scenario which is relevant to the determination of this motion. The Ford court indicated that their holding would perhaps have been different if Ford did not market and sell the Explorer and Crown Victoria in the states of Montana and Minnesota. (Id. at 1028.) “Ford had advertised, sold, and serviced those two car models in both States for many years. (Contrast a case, which we do not address, in which Ford marketed the models in only a different State or region.)” (Id.) The Ford court did not go on to explain if this contrasting case would warrant a different result.

A California Appellate Court has found that where an out-of-state company imported products into a state where the injury occurred, but did not import the specific product at issue, there was no specific jurisdiction. (LG Chem, Ltd. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 348.) LG Chem concerned the malfunctioning of model 18650 batteries. (Id. at 357.) The 18650 batteries were demonstrated by LG to be designed for use as “industrial component products” and were shown to have never been sold directly to consumers. (Id.) The plaintiff in LG Chem had purchased the battery through a third-party vendor and used it in a consumer grade vaporizer. (Id.) LG argued that their contacts, selling the 18650 battery in the forum state, were not related to plaintiff’s consumer use of the battery in a vaping device. (Id. at 365.) The court found that, in contrast to Ford, LG had not advertised, marketed, or solicited buyers for the product at issue (a battery component for electric vehicles). (Id.)  The LG Chem court noted that the Ford court had found Ford’s activity had fostered the sort of consumer behavior which laid the foundation for the claims at issue, but that LG had taken active steps to prevent the consumer behavior which established the claim against them. (Id.)

The Court finds neither of these cases fits this situation neatly. The products liability claim in LG Chem explicitly contemplates the use of a product in a way for which it was never designed. LG did not market to consumers and specifically warned about use of the product by consumers. The malfunctioning of a product when used improperly is logically unrelated to the manufacturers marketing the product industrially. Here, the evidence indicates that the water filter was being used as intended. EcoSoft SPC held itself out to the state of California as a manufacturer of water filters. Archstone claims a water filter manufactured by EcoSoft SPC then malfunctioned in the state of California when used as intended. In short, the facts that made relatedness an unbearable stretch in LG Chem are not present here.  

While Ford contains explicit doubts about relatedness where a certain model is not sold in a forum state, its principles appear more readily applicable to this situation. EcoSoft SPC is actively distributing water filters which are very similar in nature to the filter that malfunctioned in this case. It is hard to see how this cause of action is unrelated to EcoSoft SPC’s selling and marketing very similar products in the state of California.  Likewise, the is not evidence to support that EcoSoft SPC took any steps to prevent this model from sale in California or sale to consumers for use in the manner in which Plaintiff used the item.

Citation to Yamashita v. LG Chem does little to resolve this ambiguity. In Yamashita, the Ninth Circuit stated that “Ford found specific jurisdiction because Ford sold the relevant models to consumers in the forum states, not because it shipped raw materials, or even completed cars, through those states.” (Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd. (9th Cir. 2023) 62 F.4th 496, 506.) The Yamashita court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that shipments into Hawaii of large batteries for use in solar applications was sufficiently related to plaintiff’s injury by a battery similar to that in LG Chem. (Id.) Essentially the Yamashita court reasoned that a comparison of such dissimilar products could not serve as the basis for relatedness. Archstone is making no such “apples to oranges” comparison here. Archstone has provided evidence that EcoSoft SPC sold water filtration systems in the state of California. While there is certainly technical minutia that differentiate EcoSoft’s models, the difference between the products in this case is not so vast as to frustrate relatedness.

LNS Enterprises LLC v. Continental Motors, Inc. also does not resolve the issue of differing products. The plaintiff in LNS brought a products liability action in connection with the malfunction of a Cessna airplane. (LNS Enterprises LLC v. Continental Motors, Inc. (9th Cir. 2022) 22 F.4th 852, 857.) The LNS court analyzed the relatedness prong of personal jurisdiction in the context of whether Textron, a co defendant manufacturer of airplane engines, could be brought into the action against the airplane manufacturer Columbia. (Id. at 865.) The evidence showed that while Textron did contract to service Cessna engines, it did not manufacture or service the model of engine that went into plaintiff’s Cessna and did not offer service of such engines in the state of Arizona where the suit was brought. (Id.) The LNS court noted that Textron’s only evidenced connection with Columbia was through Cessna, in that Cessna acquired some of Columbia’s assets at some point in 2007. (Id.) The LNS court found the connection between Textron and Columbia to be too far attenuated for Columbia to anticipate being brought to court in Arizona. (Id.) Here, the level of attenuation is not so great. Even though EcoSoft SPC may not have sold the exact model water filter through Down Town, it remains clear that they regularly sell similar systems in the State of California. In contrast to the companies in Yamashita and LNS, there remains substantial contact with the forum state outside of exact model involved in the cause of action.

The case law makes clear that the relatedness analysis requires the Court to consider, in some part, the nature of a party’s contacts with the forum. Where the party’s contacts are more substantial, i.e., Ford, a finding of relatedness is considered more appropriate. Where the party’s contacts are completely unrelated, i.e., Yamashita, there is generally no finding of relatedness. Here, the Court finds the nature of EcoSoft SPC’s contacts are quite substantial, certainly more than the case of LNS where no direct contacts existed at all.

The Court finds this situation occupies the grey space between these extremes in a way that is not addressed in great detail by any of the existing authority. The caveat in Ford causes the Court to contemplate that differences in models sold in the forum may be a reason for pause. At the same time the differences in models discussed in Yamashita and LNS enterprises are significantly greater in magnitude than the differences here. The differences between vehicle models in Ford, batteries with entirely different use cases in Yamashita, or airplane engines in LNS all present complexities greater than the difference in models of consumer grade water filtration systems. Combined with the fact that EcoSoft SPC routinely sells consumer water filters in the State of California, the Court finds EcoSoft SPC’s contacts are sufficiently related to this cause of action for purposes of personal jurisdiction. Requiring Archstone to show that EcoSoft SPC sold the exact model water filter through Down Town would push the reasonableness analysis too close to the proximate cause inquiry which Ford and its progeny have disavowed.

In short, EcoSoft SPC regularly sells consumer water filtration systems in the State of California. Archstone alleges an EcoSoft SPC manufactured filter, albeit a different model, malfunctioned and caused serious property damage. The Court finds these two things are sufficiently related such that personal jurisdiction is established.

Reasonableness

Having been presented no new argument on supplemental briefing, the Court maintains the position that the exercise of personal jurisdiction to be reasonable.

“In evaluating whether the exercise of specific jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice, the court must consider the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum State, and the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief.” (Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Indus. Co., 31 Cal. App. 5th 543, 564, [internal quotations and citations omitted].) “It must also weigh in its determination the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. (Id., [internal quotations and citations omitted].)

“Where ... a defendant who purposefully has directed its activities at forum residents seeks to defeat jurisdiction, it must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” (Id., [internal quotations and citations omitted].)  “In the case of a foreign company, the unique burdens placed upon one who must defend oneself in a foreign legal system should have significant weight in assessing the reasonableness of stretching the long arm of personal jurisdiction over national borders.” (Id., [internal quotations and citations omitted].) However, when minimum contacts have been established, often the interests of the plaintiff and the forum in the exercise of jurisdiction will justify even the serious burdens placed on the alien defendant.” (Id., [internal quotations and citations omitted].)

EcoSoft SPC argues that to exercise jurisdiction would be unreasonable because of the severe burden of traveling between Ukraine and the U.S. EcoSoft also cites to the destruction of their Ukraine facilities which occurred in March of 2022 because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (Mitchenko Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. B.) While the Court is sensitive to the losses EcoSoft SPC has suffered, it notes that EcoSoft SPC remains a corporate entity whose products are still commercially available in California.

Accordingly, EcoSoft SPC’s motion to quash is DENIED. Responsive pleading is to be made within 30 days.  EcoSoft Water Systems’ motion to quash is GRANTED.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

EcoSoft SPC and EcoSoft WaterSystems’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons came on regularly for hearing on January 8, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

ECOSOFT WATERSYSTEMS MOTION TO QUASH IS GRANTED.

ECOSOFT SPC’S MOTION TO QUASH IS DENIED. RESPONSIVE PLEADING IS TO BE MADE WITHIN 30 DAYS 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE IS CONTINUED TO APRIL 17, 2024 AT 9:00 A.M.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, ARCHSTONE TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  January 8, 2024                           _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles