Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00938, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00938    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Bill Flores (Plaintiff) brings this action against Hovhannes Hovhannisyan (Hovhannisyan), John Harvard (Harvard), and Lyft, Inc. (Lyft). Plaintiff alleges that he was injured while a passenger in a car operated as a rideshare by Hovhannisyan/Harvard. It is Plaintiff’s contention that Hovhannisyan and Harvard are the same person, and that Harvard is simply an alias.

Harvard now moves to quash service of the summons upon him. Plaintiff opposes and Harvard replies.

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.”  (AO Alfa-Bank v. Yakovlev (2018) 21¿Cal.App.5th 189, 202 [internal quotations marks and citation omitted].)  “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.  (C.C.P. § 418.10(a)(1).  A defendant has 30 days after the service of the summons to file a responsive pleading.  (C.C.P. § 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.) 

II.                 MERITS

“The party seeking to establish jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant bears the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the exercise of jurisdiction is appropriate.” (Bresler v. Stavros (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 365, 367.) Specifically, “the plaintiff must provide specific evidentiary facts, through affidavits and other authenticated documents, sufficient to allow the court to independently conclude whether jurisdiction is appropriate and cannot rely on allegations in an unverified complaint or vague and conclusory assertions of ultimate facts.” (Swenberg v. Dmarcian, Inc. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 280, 291 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].)

“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.” (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199¿Cal.App.4th 383, 390 [internal citation omitted]; Evid. Code § 647.) 

Here, Plaintiff has filed a proof of service showing that service was effectuated by substitute service on October 7, 2023. The address for service was 14920 Parthenia St., Apt. #212 Panorama City, CA 91402. The process server stated he left the papers with a “‘Jane Doe’, Mother” described as “Age: 70’s…Hair: Blonde…Sex: Male.” Despite the obvious discrepancy in the physical description of the person served, the Court finds the affidavit serves as rebuttable evidence of proper service.

In contravention of the process server’s affidavit, Harvard argues that he was not a resident of the 14920 Parthenia St. address at the time of service. Harvard first offers the declaration of his counsel Anna Sargsyan (Sargsyan). Sargsyan states that her office has been unable to locate Harvard despite hiring an investigator to do so and has neither his contact information nor his address. (Sargsyan Decl. ¶ 9.) Sargsyan states she communicated with Plaintiff’s counsel extensively to request extensions to file responsive pleadings on Harvard’s behalf. (Sargsyan Decl. ¶ 5-8.) Sargsyan maintains that 14920 Parthenia St. was not Harvard’s residence at the time of service. (Sargsyan Decl. ¶ 3.)

Harvard also offers the declaration of private investigator Kurt Donham (Donham). Donham states that his investigation has been unable to locate Harvard’s current address or contact information. (Donham Decl. p. 1.) Donham states that the residents of 14920 Parthenia St. are Sedrak and Julietta Shabazyan, both of whom have never heard of Harvard. (Donham Decl. p.1.) Donham states that the Shabazyans have resided at the address for three years and that Julietta’s English comprehension is limited. (Id.) Donham further states that the Shabazyans routinely receive mail for Harvard which is subsequently discarded. (Id.) Donham states that Julietta discarded the summons and complaint after a family member informed her that the papers did not pertain to her. (Id. p. 2.)

Plaintiff counters that Harvard’s address was provided by Lyft in discovery. Plaintiff attaches a copy of the drivers license for Harvard obtained from Lyft which lists the 14920 Parthenia St. address, and an issuance date of September 29, 2020. (Conroy Decl. Exh. B.) Plaintiff asserts that the name of the driver on the Lyft receipt was “Hovhannes” (Conroy Decl. Exh. 2.) Putting these facts together, Plaintiff asserts that Hovhannisyan and Harvard are the same person. Whether or not Harvard and Hovhannisyan are the same person does not speak to the issue of valid service. No proof of service has been submitted for Hovhannisyan in this matter and it is clear that Plaintiff was attempting to serve the driver of the vehicle, regardless of their name.

As to the validity of service, Plaintiff contends that a public records search for Harvard shows 14920 Parthenia Street, Apt. #212 as his current address. (Conroy Decl. Exh. E.) Plaintiff states the same address appears on the recent response of the United States Postal Office to a Request for Change of Address for Harvard. (Conroy Decl. Exh. F.) Lastly, Plaintiff further offers an affidavit from process server Edgar Cusani stating that attempts to serve Harvard at 358 Riverdale Dr, Glendale, CA 91204 were unsuccessful. (Conroy Decl. Exh. C.)

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s public record search appears to yield conflicting results. 14920 Parthenia St. Apt # 212 is listed as Harvard’s residence from 12/31/2020 to 02/01/2024. (Id. Exh. E.) A different Parthenia St. address, 17920 Parthenia St. Apt. # 212, is also listed as Harvard’s residence from 11/02/2022 to 11/02/2022. (Id.) This is important because the driver’s license submitted by Plaintiff for Harvard was issued on September 9, 2020. (Conroy Decl. Exh. B.) The address listed on the license is 14920 Parthenia Street, Apt. # 212. (Id.)

Plaintiff makes no representation about attempted service at 17920 Parthenia St.; however, a reasonable conclusion is that address is listed in error, with a typo of a 7 versus a 4.   As the address appears to be only for one day, November 2, 2022, the error likely was corrected.  The Court recognizes that Harvard’s counsel has provided no explanation for how Harvard became aware of this action such that he could timely file this motion. “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.) 

Harvard’s counsel makes no representation as to how Harvard became aware of the action, and they do not offer any argument against receipt of notice. This silence is compounded by the statement of Harvard’s counsel that they cannot locate their client despite hiring a private investigator to do so. While Harvard is not obligated to show a current alternative address, his counsel’s statement that they are unable to find any address for him causes great concern. The Court does not understand how Harvard retained counsel for this matter without ever communicating with them or providing information regarding his contact or address.  

In considering all the evidence provided by the parties, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated substantial compliance with the code requirements such that notice was received by Harvard. Plaintiff has demonstrated an exercise of due diligence in ascertaining Harvard’s address and attempts to serve him there. Despite the potential existence of other addresses for service (17920 Parthenia St.) the Court finds Plaintiff adequately exercised due diligence in procuring the information for service and rendering service. Further, it is clear that this due diligence was sufficient to apprise Harvard of the action. In accordance with the liberal construction rule, the Court finds Plaintiff’s service was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Harvard.

Accordingly, the motion to quash service of summons is DENIED.  

--- 

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 

John Harvard’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons came on regularly for hearing on April 12, 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: 

THE MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT HARVARD SHALL FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING WITHIN 10 CALENDAR DAYS.   

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: April 12, 2024                           _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles