Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 20STCV15927, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV15927    Hearing Date: March 11, 2025    Dept: O

Case Name:  JK7 LLC V ABS CONSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS

MOVING PARTY:   Specially Appearing Defendant Mohammad Kashani

RESP. PARTY:         No responsive party as of 5-5-25

TENTATIVE RULING

            Specially Appearing Defendant/Party Mohammad Kashani’s Motion to Quash Service of Process is GRANTED. The Motion was filed on 11-18-24, and no opposition has been filed as of 3-5-25. An order for publication made upon Defendant Nader Kashani was ordered by the Court on 1-17-25. (See 1-17-25 Publication Order.) Specially Appearing Party Mohammad Kashani declares they are not the named Defendant Nader Kashani (“Nader”), and therefore not a party to the action, thus a motion to quash is the proper procedure to attack the validity of the summons. (See Maier Brewing Co. v. Flora Crane Service, Inc. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 873, 875 [“A service upon one not named in a complaint does not confer jurisdiction to proceed upon the complaint against him, and a motion to quash is proper”]; see also Amanda Kashani Decl., ¶¶ 3–4; Mohammad Kashani Decl., ¶ 3; Glatzhofer Decl., ¶ 3.)

Additionally, Mohammad Kashani provides a declaration from his counsel Craig S. Glatzhofer (“Glatzhofer”) stating that both parties have agreed in a chain of emails that Mohammad Kashani is not the named Defendant Nader Kashani and thus “said service was on the wrong individual on October 24, 2024.” (Glatzhofer Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. C.)

Thus, the Court finds that Mohammad Kashani, the party served by substitute service on 10-24-24 in place of Nader Kashani, is not the named defendant Nader Kashani, thus the Court has no jurisdiction over Mohammad Kashani. Specially appearing Party Mohammad Kashani’s Motion to Quash Service of Process for lack of Jurisdiction is GRANTED as to the substitute service on 10-24-24 only.

APPLICABLE LAW

The proper procedure for attacking the validity of a summons which has been served upon a person who is not a party to an action is by a motion to quash the service thereof. (Kline v. Beauchamp (1938) 29 Cal.App.2d 340, 342.)

“A service upon one not named in a complaint does not confer jurisdiction to proceed upon the complaint against him, and a motion to quash is proper. (Fuss v. City of Los Angeles, 162 Cal.App.2d 643, 646, 328 P.2d 831; Cf. Ford v. Doyle, 37 Cal. 346.) If such a proper motion is not granted, he is entitled to mandamus. (Cf. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Superior Court, 247 Cal.App.2d 326, 330, 55 Cal.Rptr. 574.)” (Maier Brewing Co. v. Flora Crane Service, Inc. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 873, 875.)

“If a defendant has been served with process and he claims defects in the service and lack of jurisdiction of the court over his person, he must do so by special appearance for the purpose of moving to quash summons * * *. The motion to quash service must be strictly limited to the point of no jurisdiction over the person of the moving party.” (Nelson v. Horvath (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.)

            California Code of Civil Procedure §415.20(b) provides:

If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, as specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person's 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 of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, emphasis added.)

            “[A]n individual may be served by substitute service only after a good faith effort at personal service has first been made: the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the individual defendant . . . . [with] [t]wo or three attempts to personally serve a defendant at a proper place ordinarily qualif[ying] as reasonable diligence.” (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 389.)

            “Code of Civil Procedure section 415.50 provides the statutory basis for defendant's attack. The relevant subdivision provides as follows: ‘(a) A summons may be served by publication if upon affidavit it appears to the satisfaction of the court in which the action is pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another manner specified in this article and that: (1) A cause of action exists against the party upon whon service is to be made or he is a necessary or proper party to the action.” (Harris v. Cavasso (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 723, 725.) “The court shall order the summons to be published in a named newspaper, published in this state, that is most likely to give actual notice to the party to be served.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.50, subd. (b).)

            “Publication of summons must be made in a named newspaper of general circulation [Cal. Gov. Code § 6060], published in this state [Cal. Gov. Code §§ 6004.5, 6020], for the period prescribed by Section 6064 of the Government Code (once a week for four successive weeks) . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.50, judicial council comment.)