Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 24STCV08753, Date: 2024-08-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV08753 Hearing Date: August 13, 2024 Dept: 37
HEARING DATE: Tuesday, August 13, 2024
CASE NUMBER: 24STCV08753
CASE NAME: Vivi Robyn Stafford, MD v. California Department of State Hospitals, et
al.
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Department of State
Hospitals, State of California, and Defendant Johnathan Hamrick, MD
OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff Viv Stafford, MD
TRIAL DATE: Not set.
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
PROCEEDING: Motion to Quash Service of
Summons
OPPOSITION: 02 August 2024
REPLY: 09
August 2024
TENTATIVE: Defendants’ motion to quash is granted.
Defendants to give notice.
Background
On April 8, 2024,
Vivi Robyn Stafford, MD (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed a Complaint against
the California Department of State Hospitals (“Defendant”).
The operative First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) added Union of American Physicians and Dentists;
Union of American Physicians and Dentist Fund; and Johnathan Hamrick, MD as
Defendants. The FAC alleges 18 causes of action:
1)
Intentional
Misrepresentation;
2)
Disability Discrimination
in violation of Gov. Code § 12949 et seq.;
3)
Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress;
4)
Breach of Contract;
5)
Violation of Lab. Code §
1101.5;
6)
Defamation per Quad;
7)
Employment Fraud;
8)
Unlawful and Unfair
Business Practices under Bus. &
Prof. Code § 17200;
9)
Discrimination Race;
10)
Conspiracy,
11)
Retaliation;
12)
Sex Discrimination;
13)
Libel;
14)
Slander;
15)
Whistleblowing;
16)
Violation of Inalienable
Right to Privacy;
17)
Violation of Lab. Code §
970; and
18)
Sexual Harassment.
On July 1, 2024,
Defendants California Department of State Hospitals, State of California and
Defendant Johnathan Hamrick, MD (collectively “Defendants”) moved to quash the
service of summons. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. The matter is now before the
court.
I.
Legal Standard
CCP § 418.10(a) states: “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 or file a
motion…[t]o quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of
the court over him or her.”¿¿¿¿¿
¿
When a defendant moves to quash
service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial
burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction.¿(State
of Oregon v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557.)¿If the
plaintiff meets his or her burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to
demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Buchanan
v. Soto (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1362. [“When a motion to quash is
properly brought, the burden of proof is placed upon the plaintiff to establish
the facts of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.”].) This burden
must be met by competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documentary
evidence. (Jewish Defense Org. v. Superior Court¿(1999) 72 Cal.App.4th
1045, 1055.)
II. Discussion
Defendants assert
that the service of summons at the address 1300 “I” Street Sacramento,
California, 95314-2919 is the incorrect and improper because that address
belongs to the Office of the Attorney General of California.
Defendants assert
that the Department of State Hospitals is a separate entity from the State of
California. “Each agency or department of the state is established as a
separate entity, under various state laws or constitutional provisions.” (People
ex rel. Lockyer v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1060, 1078.)
“[S]tate agencies, in the ordinary course of their duties, are distinct and
separate governmental entities[.]” (Ibid.)
Under California
law, a plaintiff properly effects service of process on a public agency by
serving a “clerk, secretary, president, presiding officer, or other head of its
governing body.” (CCP § 416.50(a).) Plaintiff fails to show that the California
Attorney General is a “clerk, secretary, president, presiding officer, or other
head” of the Department of State Hospitals.
The court directs
Plaintiff's attention to the California Secretary of State's “California
Roster,” available at https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/california-roster, which provides the address and contact information for all state
agencies, departments, boards, and commissions. (See Gov. Code, § 960.8
[“Service of process in an action or proceeding against a public agency may be
made in conformity with the information contained in the statement in the
Registry of Public Agencies pertaining to that public agency which is on file
at the time of that service. Service in this manner, if otherwise made in
compliance with law, constitutes personal service upon the public agency.”];
see also Gov. Code, § 53051.) If a public agency, as defined by Gov. Code § 53050,
fails to file the information required by Gov. Code § 53051 the failure of a plaintiff
to present a government claim as required by Gov. Code § 945.4 does not
constitute a bar or defense to the maintenance of a suit against that public
agency. (See Gov. Code, § 946.4.)
Plaintiff may also
serve an agency's representative through substitute service under California
law. To be effective, a plaintiff must leave the summons and complaint at the
representative's office with “the person who is apparently in charge” and,
thereafter, mail a copy of the documents to the representative at the same
address. (CCP § 415.20(a).)
As Plaintiff has
failed to show that service was proper at 1300 “I” Street Sacrament, CA
95314-2919, the motion to quash the service of summons is granted.
Conclusion
Defendants’ motion to quash is granted.
Defendants to give notice.