Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV02792, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02792    Hearing Date: August 17, 2022    Dept: 61

Defendant Gioia Sofia Moore’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED.

I.      MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

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.”

“‘[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction.” (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544.) 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.)

Substitute service is allowed when personal service cannot be effect by reasonable diligence by leaving the summons and complaint at the “dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge,” and by subsequently mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail to the person to be served at the place the summons and complaint were left. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)

Defendant Gioia Sofia Moore argues that service against her must be quashed because although two proofs of service filed on March 14, 2022, indicate that Plaintiff was twice served by substitute service at her home and business address, the service against her was actually incomplete. (Motion at p. 2.) Specifically, Defendant offers a declaration stating that the substitute service upon her place of business is ineffective because she is being sued in her personal capacity and the receptionist who accepted service is neither her employee nor authorized to accept service of process. (Moore Decl. ¶ 3.) Moore also argues that service at her home was defective because she only discovered copies of the summons and complaint on the windshield of her car. (Moore Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.)

Defendant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Substitute service may be made upon an individual’s “usual place of business,” regardless of whether the business itself is the entity being sued. (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20, subd. (b).) Nor is substitute service dependent upon service being made upon an agent of defendant, but rather upon a person “apparently in charge” at the defendant’s acknowledged address. (Ibid.) Such service was accomplished here by leaving the papers with the receptionist.

The motion is DENIED.