Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV19903, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19903    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 61

Defendant Anat Goldstein’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

Defendant to provide notice.

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.)

Defendant Anat Goldstein moves to quash service of summons purported to be accomplished upon her personally by two identical proofs of service filed on July 11 and 15, 2022. Those proofs of service state that Defendant was personally served with the complaint and summons on July 11, 2022, in Hollywood, Florida; that she responded to her name; and that she was with a silver Mercedes-Benz vehicle registered to her.

Defendant submits a declaration stating that she was never served, as stated in the proofs of service. (Goldstein Decl. ¶ 5.) She testifies that she was not in Florida in July of this year, and has never been to Hollywood, Florida. (Ibid.) She further states that she does not own a silver Mercedes and does not have one registered to her. (Ibid.) Defendant further states that she does not match the description of the person served, as she is younger than 45 years of age and weighs less than 140 pounds. (Ibid.)

Defendant’s declaration persuasively rebuts the description of service included in the proofs filed in July of this year. She indicates that she has never been to Hollywood, Florida, was not in Florida on the date in question, and does not own the vehicle described. Plaintiffs have filed no opposition to the motion, and have not rebutted Defendant’s evidence.

The motion to quash is therefore GRANTED.