Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00600, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00600    Hearing Date: September 29, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS

ALLEGATIONS: 

Brittney Dixon (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Excel Residential (“Excel”) and J.K. Residential Services, Inc. (“JK Residential”) (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges, among other things, Defendants were negligent with respect to remediation of mold and failing to repair the heater in Plaintiff’s apartment.

JK Residential now moves to quash service of the summons and complaint on grounds that service was not rendered in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P”) § 416.10. Plaintiff has filed no opposition.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

“‘Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.’ [Citation.]”  (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.)  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.) 

“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 v. McClanahan¿(2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) 

“Evidence Code section 647 provides that a registered process server’s declaration of service establishes a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence of the facts stated in the declaration.  [Citation.]”  (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199¿Cal.App.4th 383, 390; Evid. Code § 647.) 

II.                 MERITS

JK Residential argues service upon them was insufficient because it was allegedly rendered upon their receptionist. The proof of service reflects that service was made upon the following person on May 17, 2023:

Jane Doe, Reception (Hispanic, Female, 30’s, 5’6, 130lbs, black hair, brown eyes)

JK Residential states this person is unknown to them and is not a receptionist for the company. JK Residential submits the declaration of Noel Salas, Jr., their receptionist, who attests that on May 17, 2023, they were working in the JK Residential offices when a process server entered the building and left paperwork on the counter before leaving. (Salas Decl. ¶ 1.) Salas states he does not match the physical description on the proof of service. (Salas Decl. ¶ 2.)  Salas also states that he is not a registered agent of service for JK residential. (Salas Decl. ¶ 3.)

“It is axiomatic that strict compliance with the code's provisions for service of process is not required. (Ramos v. Homeward Residential, Inc., 223 Cal. App. 4th 1434, 1443.) “[I]n 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.” (Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 295, 313.) In essence, substantial compliance with the code’s requirements for service of process is sufficient. (Id.)  

Here, JK Residential has submitted declarations attesting that they have received actual notice of the lawsuit. Salas states that the process server entered the offices of JK Residential and left the paperwork on the counter. The Court understands JK Residential’s argument that this is not actual service on an authorized agent. However, the Court also acknowledges the common-sense conclusion that this service was sufficient to provide actual notice given that JK Residential was able to timely file a motion to quash, and no default has been entered. Service was affected on May 17, 2023 and JK Residential filed its motion to quash on June 21, 2023. In accordance with the liberal construction rule, the Court finds Plaintiff substantially complied with the service requirements such as to give JK Residential actual notice of this action.

--- 

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 

J.K. Residential Services, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons came on regularly for hearing on September 29, 2023, 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: 

THE MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS IS DENIED.  

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: September 29, 2023                           _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles