Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 25CHCV01085, Date: 2025-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25CHCV01085    Hearing Date: May 9, 2025    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 05-09-25

Case # 25CHCV01085, Higgins v. Razaghi, et al.

Trial Date: None set.

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Kambiz Razaghi and Nazanin Mojahed aka Nazanin Bakhtiar

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Steven Higgins

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order quashing service of summons and complaint, striking declaration of non-service, compelling production of documents and communications regarding service, and imposing sanctions or referring the matter for further investigation under Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7.

RULING: Motion is denied.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On April 1, 2025, plaintiff Steven Higgins (Plaintiff) filed this unlawful detainer action against defendants Kambiz Razaghi and Nazanin Mojahed aka Nazanin Bakhtiar (Defendants).  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to comply with Plaintiff’s 30-day notice to pay rent or quit the property located at 23863 Erin Place, West Hills, CA 91304.  Possession of the property is in dispute, and Plaintiff seeks $68,400.00 in past due rent and damages at a daily rate of $190.00 from March 1, 2025 until Defendants relinquish possession of Plaintiff’s property.

On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed an application for an order to serve Defendants by posting and mailing and a declaration of non-service claiming he was unable to personally serve Defendants on four occasions: April 2, 3, 4, and 8, 2025.  The court granted the order that same day.  On April 16, 2025, Defendants were served with the summons and complaint via posting on the front door of the West Hills property and mailing copies of the summons and complaint via certified mail to the West Hills property.

On April 14, 2025, defendant Razaghi moved to quash service of the summons and complaint.  Razaghi filed an amended motion on April 24, 2025.  That same day, Plaintiff filed an opposition.  No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

Quash Service of Summons and Complaint

A defendant may file and serve a notice of motion to quash service of summons on grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction, e.g., because service was improper.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a); see, e.g., Tresway Aero, Inc. v. Superior Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 431, 433 [defendant filed motion to quash on ground that service on corporation was defective because it did not comply with Code Civ. Proc., § 410, now § 412.30]; County of Riverside v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 443, 446 [defendant filed motion to quash on ground that service was defective because summons did not specify date for answering and appearing].)¿ The defendant must attach evidence such as affidavits and declarations to support its motion.  (See Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 563.) 

“On a motion to quash service of summons, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that all jurisdictional criteria are met.  The burden must be met by competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documents; an unverified complaint may not be considered as supplying the necessary facts.”  (Nobel Floral, Inc. v. Pasero (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 654, 657-58 [citations omitted].) 

“A summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete at the time of such delivery.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10.)  To serve a summons and complaint by substitute service, the plaintiff must (1) leave a copy of the summons and complaint “at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address”; (2) with “a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of the [person’s] office, place of business, or usual mailing address” who is at least “18 years of age”; and (3) mail a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)

A dwelling house or abode means a place one holds out as their principal residence.  (Rovinski v. Rowe (6th Cir. 1942) 131 F.2d 687, 689 [noting appellant “paid for and had listed a telephone in his own name at that home; that he kept some clothing and odds and ends there; that there was always a bedroom ready for his occupancy when he returned home and that he invariably occupied it; and that he was unmarried and maintained no other household of his own. He conceded that he never voted elsewhere than in the State of Michigan”].)

Summary of Arguments

Defendants argue that the court should quash service of summons because Plaintiff never served them.  Defendants raise service issues from a separate unlawful detainer case involving the same registered service agents.  Defendants claim they received the Notice of Unlawful Detainer filing but have not been served.  Defendants do not state how they received notice of the case.  Defendants claim they were home during the four times that Plaintiff’s process server states they attempted to personally serve them.  The process server did not knock or leave a tag or note.  Defendants’ video surveillance system also shows that no one attempted to serve them.  In case number 23VECV05758, a process server from the same company in this case—Countrywide Process, LLC—declared service on defendant Mojahed which led to an improper default judgment.  The process server failed to prove service and the court vacated the judgment finding the server lacked credibility.  Because the process server works in a building that is owned by Plaintiff’s counsel’s LLC, Defendants believe the process server has filed false declaration.  Finally, the Defendants contend that the court should postpone the hearing date so that Plaintiff can timely file and serve an opposition before the last court day before the hearing date.  (Citing Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1237(c).)

Plaintiff opposes, stating that the court should deny Defendants’ motion because they filed the motion prematurely pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1164, subd. (a).  Motions filed pursuant to section 418.20, subdivision (a), must be filed within 3-7 days after filing a notice of the motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1167.4, subd. (a).)  Defendants filed their initial motion on April 14, 2025 and an amended motion on April 24, 2025.  The April 14th motion was taken off calendar, and the April 24th motion noticed a hearing for August 5, 2025.  The hearing date was advanced to May 9, 2025, giving Defendants until May 7, 2025 to file a reply.  Further, service of summons via posting and mailing is deemed complete on the tenth day after posting and mailing.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.45, subd. (c).)  Because Defendants were served via posting and mailing on April 16, 2025, service was not deemed complete until April 26, 2025.  Therefore, Defendants’ motion to quash is premature because it was filed on April 24, 2025.[1]

Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants were properly served with the summons and complaint on April 16, 2025 by posting at the front door of the property at approximately 2:08 p.m. and by mailing copies pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 415.45.  (Declaration of Steven Higgins, ¶ 2.)  The registered agent for service of process, Frank Navarro, claims that he was given a copy of the summons and complaint (case number 25CHCV01085) to be served on Defendants at the property located at 23863 Erin Place, West Hills, CA 91304.  (Declaration of Frank Navarro, ¶ 3.)  Navarro attempted to personally serve Defendants on four occasions (April 2, 3, 4, and 8, 2025), but there was no response when Navarro knocked.  (Navarro Dec., ¶ 4, Exh. 1 - Application to Post.)  After the four unsuccessful attempts, Navarro posted the summons and complaint at the property on April 16, 2025 at 2:08 p.m. according to Code Civ. Proc., § 415.45.  (Navarro Dec., ¶ 5, Exh. 2 - Proof of Service of Summons.)  Navarro’s associate, Christina Demirchyan, mailed copies of the summons and complaint that same day.  (Navarro Dec., ¶ 6, Exh. 2, at pp. 3, 8 [Proof of Service by Certified Mail].)

Plaintiff also presents logs from the ADT security system installed on the West Hills property.  (Higgins Dec., ¶ 3, Exh. 1.)  According to the April 16, 2025 logs, the ADT system recorded multiple instances of windows and doors opening and closing on the property at 5:33 p.m., 5:34 p.m., 6:05 p.m., and 6:06 p.m., indicating that someone was home during the afternoon and early evening.  (Higgins Dec., ¶ 4.)  This indicates that Defendants were likely present on the property after service was posted and retrieved the documents.  Plaintiff also asserts that because Defendants set up a ring camera, they would have been alerted as soon as the process server approached the door and left the papers.  (Higgins Dec., ¶ 7.)

A review of the ADT logs shows that the garage door to the property was opened at 1:38 p.m. and closed at 4:42 p.m.  (Higgins Dec., Exh. 1, at p. 2.)  This indicates that someone was on the property shortly before the documents were posted at 2:08 p.m.  The logs also show that the front door was opened and closed twice at 5:09 p.m. and opened and closed at least once at 5:32 p.m.

The court finds that the evidence shows that Defendants on the property and in the home on the day service occurred, shortly before service occurred, and after service occurred.  Whoever was on the property opened the front door multiple times after service indicating that one of the tenants saw the summons and complaint posted on the front door.  Further, the evidence shows that the process server properly served both Defendants via certified mail at the property.

Defendants do not present evidence—even logs for their Ring camera—to rebut Plaintiff’s proof of service.

Therefore, the court denies Defendants’ motion to quash service of summons and complaint.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to quash service of summons and the complaint is denied.

Defendants to give notice.