Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 21SMCV01081, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01081    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff Cara Sims brings this action against Defendant Santa Monica Community College District (erroneously sued as “Human resources [sic] Santa Monica College”), Defendant Kathryn Jeffery (collectively with Santa Monica Community College District, “Defendants”), and other alleging discrimination, retaliation, and harassment in connection with her time as a student at Santa Monica Community College. Plaintiff’s operative pleading is her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed on September 30, 2022. Defendants bring this motion to quash Plaintiff’s service of her original Complaint, arguing it was superseded by the FAC. Defendants’ motion is unopposed.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Complaint and FAC in this action. (Dumont Decl. at ¶4.) Defendants’ request is unopposed and is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

“A defendant . . . 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.C.P. § 418.10(a).) “[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.]” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.) “[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper” but only if it “complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.” (Id. at 1441-1442.) When a defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, the plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Coulston v. Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868.) “A court lacks jurisdiction over a party if there has not been proper service of process.” (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.)

“The filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper. However, the presumption arises only if the proof of service complies with the applicable statutory requirements.” (Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795.)

Where the Court has authorized service pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 415.45, service is accomplished by posting the summons “on the premises in a manner most likely to give actual notice to the party to be served” and mailing “a copy of the summons and complaint … by certified mail to such party as his last known address.” (C.C.P. § 415.45(b).) Service pursuant to this section “is deemed complete on the 10th day after posting and mailing.” (C.C.P. § 415.45(c).)

Analysis

Plaintiff’s original Complaint in this action was filed on June 18, 2021. On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative FAC. On October 4, 2022, Plaintiff served her original Complaint on Defendants. (Dumont Decl. at ¶5.) Defendants claim Plaintiff has never served them with the operative FAC. (Id. at ¶6.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion or otherwise contested this representation.

Plaintiff was required to serve the FAC on Defendants. “[A] copy of the amendments or amended complaint must be served upon the defendants affected thereby.” (C.C.P. § 471.5.) The filing of the FAC rendered Plaintiff’s original Complaint moot and ineffective to assert claims against Defendants:

“‘[A]n amendatory pleading supersedes the original one, which ceases to perform any function as a pleading.’” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 884 [92 Cal. Rptr. 162, 479 P.2d 362].) “The amended complaint furnishes the sole basis for the cause of action, and the original complaint ceases to have any effect either as a pleading or as a basis for judgment. [Citation.] [¶] Because there is but one complaint in a civil action [citation], the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint. [Citation.]” (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131 [109 Cal. Rptr. 3d 88].) Thus, the filing of an amended complaint renders moot a demurrer to the original complaint. (Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services, Inc. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1054 [18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 882].) Similarly, “once an amended complaint is filed, it is error to grant summary adjudication on a cause of action contained in a previous complaint. [Citation.] … ‘… After a cause of action is amended, the court may rule in favor of the defendant if, upon subsequent motion, or perhaps renewal of the earlier motion if appropriately framed, it is shown … there are no triable material issues of fact which would permit recovery on that theory.’ [Citation.]” (State Compensation, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 1131.)

(JKC3H8 v. Colton (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 477.)

As it is undisputed that Defendants have not been properly served with the operative FAC in this action, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to quash service of the original Complaint.

Conclusion

Defendants’ motion to quash is GRANTED.