Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCP03651, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP03651    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: 61

Respondents Amir Haim Moyal and NKS Laboratories LTD’S Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

Respondents to provide notice.

I.                   MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE 

Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subd. (a)(1) 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 and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes . . . (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.”

Mere notice of litigation does not confer personal jurisdiction absent substantial compliance with the statutory requirements for service of summons. (MJS Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 555, 557.)

While courts are not required to accept self-serving evidence — such as declarations that one was not served — submitted to support a motion to quash, facial defects of the proof of service will rebut its presumption of proper service. (American Exp. Centurion Bank, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 390.) The burden is on a plaintiff to prove facts showing that service was effective. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)

Respondents Amir Haim Moyal and NKS Laboratories, Ltd (Respondents) move to quash service of summons made upon them on October 23 and 24, 2022. Moyal describes two attempts at service on these dates, delivered by courier to two addresses in Israel, at which he was not present, and where the relevant documents were left with, respectively, a family member and a gardener. (Moyal Decl. ¶ 3.)

The evidence presented shows that Respondents reside and are incorporated in the State of Israel. (Moyal Decl. ¶ 2.) Israel is a contracting party to the Hague Convention. (See Member, Israel; Hague Conference Website, https://www.hcch.net/en/states/hcch-members/details1/?sid=45, accessed February 1, 2023.) Accordingly, it is Petitioner’s burden to show that service was accomplished upon Respondents in compliance with the Hague Convention, or a proper basis for why the Hague Convention does not apply. (See Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160.) The facts described by Respondents describe documents left at locations where they were not present with persons not authorized to accept service. Petitioner has filed no opposition to show that service was accomplished lawfully through a “central authority” established in Israel or through other means to which Israel does not object. (See  20 U.S.T. § 361, arts. 2, 10.)

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.