Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 23STCV16095, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16095    Hearing Date: November 6, 2023    Dept: 61

Defendant 11750 LMLA, LLC’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED..

Defendant to give notice.

I.                   Motion to Quash Summons and Complaint

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.”

“When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413, internal quotation marks omitted.)

11750 LMLA, LLC presents itself as the property manager of the property upon which Plaintiff Ryan Pajouni (Plaintiff) bases the claims in his Complaint. LMLA argues that the Complaint sues “Douglas Emmett,” but while the property is owned by a family of corporations collectively known as “Douglas Emmett” entities, there is no single entity known as Douglas Emmett, as stated in the Complaint. (Wayne Decl. ¶¶ 3–4; Goldscher Decl. Exh. A [showing “Douglas Emmett” entities doing business in California].)

“A non-existent entity may not be effectively served with summons as a named defendant and may not be subjected to jurisdiction of a court by an entry of a general appearance on its behalf.” (Omega Video Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 470, 477.) LMLA has made a showing that the entity which Plaintiff seeks to sue and sought to serve in this case is nonexistent. Plaintiff has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.