Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 22TRCV00957, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00957    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: B

PROCEEDINGS

PSF REO, LLC v. Thomas T. Brown, et al.

22TRCV00957

1.      Thomas T. Brown’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint  

TENTATIVE RULING

            Thomas T. Brown’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is denied.

Background

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on October 14, 2022. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff and Defendant Thomas T. Brown entered into a loan transaction secured by the real property located at 72 The Strand #2 Hermosa Beach, CA.  After the foreclosure sale of the property, Plaintiff discovered that, on the eve of foreclosure, Brown entered into leases concerning the property. Now several different parties assert a leasehold interest in the property. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (2) Intentional Interference with Contract; (3) Waste; (4) Civil Conspiracy; (5) Declaratory Relief; (6) Ejectment.

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code Section 452(d) and (h). However, the Court finds that the matters to which request for judicial notice were sought have little or no relevance to the issue presented by this motion, that is, whether Defendant was validly served.

Motion to Quash

Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10 states: “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. The date upon which personal delivery is made shall be entered on or affixed to the face of the copy of the summons at the time of its delivery. However, service of a summons without such date shall be valid and effective.”

Defendant Thomas T. Brown moves, pursuant to CCP § 418.10, for an order quashing Plaintiff’s purported service of summons and complaint. The motion is made on the grounds that the summons and complaint were not properly served on Defendant. Defendant argues that the personal service effectuated upon him at the courtroom of the U.S. District Court, Riverside Central District of California, 3420 Twelfth St. # 304 Riverside, CA 92501-3819 was invalid.

The motion to quash must be denied.  Defendant does not deny, and, in fact, admits, that he was personally served with the summons and complaint.  Defendant is not happy that he was served at the courthouse in Riverside, California.  However, Defendant provides no authority to show that personally serving an individual at a courthouse constitutes defective service.  On the contrary, service upon attorneys and individuals at a courthouse is a common practice.  Thus, there can be no dispute that Defendant was validly served by personal service.

Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is denied.

Defendant is ordered to file and serve a responsive pleading within 10 days of this date.