Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 25STCV06057, Date: 2025-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV06057    Hearing Date: May 23, 2025    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE:                 Friday, May 23, 2025

CASE NUMBER:                   25STCV06057

CASE NAME:                        Culver City Mall, LLC v. Azucanela, LLC, et al.

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Robert Leiva

OPPOSING PARTY:             Plaintiff Culver City Mall, LLC

TRIAL DATE:                        Not set.

PROOF OF SERVICE:           OK

PROCEEDING:                      Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint

OPPOSITION:                        08 May 2025

REPLY:                                  Not as of 05/21/2025

TENTATIVE:                         Defendant’s Motion to quash the service of summons and Complaint is denied.

Background

On March 4, 2025, Culver City Mall (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Azucanela LLC; Robert Leiva (collectively “Defendants”); and Does 1 to 50. The Complaint alleges two causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract, and (2) Breach of Guaranty.

Defendant Robert Leiva, in pro per, now moves to quash the service of summons and Complaint. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. The matter is now before the court.

Motion to quash service of summons and complaint

I.         Legal Standard 

A defendant may serve and file a notice of motion to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over it.¿ (CCP § 418.10(a).)¿ CCP § 418.10 provides the exclusive procedure for challenging personal jurisdiction at the outset.¿(Roy v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 337, 342.)¿ Although the defendant is the moving party, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to defeat the motion by establishing that jurisdictional grounds exist.¿(Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.)¿¿

II.        Request for Judicial Notice

The court may take judicial notice of “official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States,” “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States,” and “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code, § 452(c), (d), and (h).) “Taking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning.” (Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, 374.)

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice

Exhibit A: Proof of Service of Summons filed by Plaintiff Culver City Mall LLC on or about March 11, 2025.

Exhibit B: Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State on March 11, 2025, listing Edward J. Leiva as the Managing Member, CEO, and Agent for Service of Process for Azucanela LLC

Exhibit C: Email correspondence between Edward J. Leiva and counsel for Plaintiff(Ballard Spahr 36 LLP), reflecting Plaintiff's knowledge of Mr. Leiva's role as the legal representative of Azucanela LLC.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted as to Exhibits A and B but denied as to Exhibit C as Defendant fails to show that the court may take judicial notice of Exhibit C.

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice

Exhibit A: A true and correct copy of the Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State on January 23, 2023 by Defendant Azucanela, LLC, a California limited liability company, doing business as “Azucanela”, which Defendant Robert Leiva signed under penalty of perjury, and identified himself as the Chief Executive Officer, Managing Member, and Authorized Agent for Service of Process (the “Statement”).

Exhibit B: A true and correct copy of the Proof of Service of Summons filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number 25STCV06057 for Defendant Azucanela LLC, a California limited liability company, doing business as “Azucanela” served on Robert Leiva, agent for service of process, showing personal service on March 8, 2025 at 14135 Doty Ave. Apt. 5, Hawthorne, California 90250-8085 (“Proof of Service – Azucanela”).

Exhibit C: A true and correct copy of the Proof of Service of Summons filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number 25STCV060570 for Defendant Robert Leiva, an individual, showing personal service on March 8, 2025 at 14135 Doty Ave. Apt. 5, Hawthorne, California 90250-8085.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted.

III.      Discussion

On March 28, 2024, Defendant Robert Leiva filed a motion to quash service and complaint on the basis that service on him was improper.

First, Defendant Robert Leiva filed this Motion in pro per and has no standing to challenge service upon Defendant Azucanela LLC as he has failed to show he is licensed to practice law. “[A] corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) Secondly, nothing in CCP § 416.10 requires that service on the registered agent for service of process be made at the corporation’s principal place of business. Defendant Robert Leiva admits he was personally served on March 8, 2025 at 14135 Doty Ave, Apt 5, Hawthorne, CA, 90250. (See e.g. Robert Leiva Decl..)

Second, Defendant Robert Leiva asserts that service on him was improper because he is not the registered agent for service of process for Azucanela LLA and the proper agent is Edward Leiva. When the Defendant was personally served on March 8, 2025, he was still listed as the Chief Executive Officer, Managing Member, and Authorized Agent for Service of Process for Defendant Azucanela, LLC. (Plaintiff’s RJN Ex. A.)  It was not until after Defendant was personally served that Defendant updated the Statement of Information on March 11, 2025, with  the California Secretary of State showing that Edward Leiva was now the registered agent for service of process. (Defendant’s RJN Ex. B.) Defendant Robert Leiva also failed to file a resignation as agent for service of process pursuant to Corp. Code § 1503, prior to being served. Therefore, service on Defendant Robert Leiva was valid as he was the registered agent for service of process for Defendant Azucanela.

Lastly, Plaintiff fails to show that the second proof of service, wherein he was served in his individual capacity, was invalid. Therefore, the Motion to quash is denied.

Conclusion

Defendant’s Motion to quash the service of summons and Complaint is denied.