Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV22780, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22780    Hearing Date: January 8, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY:  Defendants Khaula Azher, aka Khaula Mehmoud and Nadia Mufti (collectively “Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Anes Mufti

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            This is a defamation action. On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) conspiracy; (2) slander per se; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) gross negligence; (5) negligence; (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

            On October 11, 2024, Defendants filed the instant motion to quash service of summons (the “Motion”). On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition (the “Opposition”). On January 2, 2025, Defendants filed a reply (the “Reply”).           

DISCUSSION

            A defendant may move “[t]o quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her” on or before the last day they may plead. (Code Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) “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 quoting Dill v. Berquist Construction Co.¿(1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439–1440.) 

The defendant should attach evidence to support its motion. (See School Dist. of Okaloosa Cty. v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1131 [defendant must present some admissible evidence in form of affidavits or declarations to place issue of lack of jurisdiction before court]; see, e.g., Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 563 [defendant supported motion to quash with declarations]; cf. Floveyor Int’l v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 793-794 [“‘A defendant who takes the position that the service of summons as made upon him did not bring him within the jurisdiction of the court’[] may serve and file a notice of motion to quash the service,’” where “‘the effect of such a notice is to place upon the plaintiff the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction … [or] the facts requisite to a[] [showing of] effective service’” (citations omitted].)

            Defendants assert that on October 11, 2024, Plaintiff improperly served a summons and complaint via priority mail rather than first-class mail as required by CCP section 415.30 and Plaintiff failed to include the notice and acknowledgement forms or a return envelope (Mot. p. 5:13-21). Defendants further assert that Plaintiff did not file a proof of service with the Court. (Mot. p. 7:7-10)

            In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants were properly served via mail on September 10 and 11, 2024 and that proof of service was filed with the Court on September 19, 2024. (Opp. ¶ 2) Plaintiff also asserts that this Motion violates CCP section 418.10 subdivision (b) because the hearing was set more than thirty days after filing of the notice and that he was not served with notice of the instant Motion. (Opp. ¶¶ 1, 3)

            In reply, Defendants assert that although Plaintiff’s process server states that he made multiple attempts to serve the Defendants personally and left the documents at the front door on September 8, 2024, they only received the documents via mail on September 11, 2024. (Reply ¶¶ 3-4) Defendants also assert that the first available date to schedule this hearing was at the end of December 2024, and that January 8, 2025 was the first date Defendants were available. (Reply ¶ 12)   

            The proofs of service filed with the Court on September 19, 2024, state that service was accomplished via United States mail and by overnight delivery. (9/19/24 Proof of Service as to Khaula Azher; 9/19/24 Proof of Service as to Nadia Mufti.) The proofs of service do not, however, demonstrate compliance with CCP section 415.30, subdivision (a), that two copies of the Notice of Acknowledgement of Receipt and a postage-paid return envelope were included in the service. (Id.) Copies of the served documents and a completed Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt are not attached to the proofs of service. “Service of a summons pursuant to this section is deemed complete on the date a written acknowledgment of receipt of summons is executed, if such acknowledgment thereafter is returned to the sender.” (CCP, § 415.30, subd. (c).) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff failed to satisfy the burden to demonstrate facts requisite to effective service of the summons and complaint.

            The Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 8th day of January 2025