Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV27147, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27147    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Wendy Susanto (“Moving Defendant”)

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship.  Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) violation of Civil Code sections 51 and 52; (2) violation of Civil Code section 46; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) breach of contract; (5) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (6) malicious prosecution. 

            Moving Defendant filed a motion to quash service of summons of the Complaint (the “Motion”) on the grounds that Plaintiff did not properly serve her with the Complaint. 

DISCUSSION

Under CCP section 418.10, subdivision (a), a defendant may serve and file a notice of motion to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.  (CCP § 418.10, subd. (a).)  Compliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction.  (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.)  The 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 1441-42.)   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.)

            As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service.  For this reason and because Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, Plaintiff has not met his burden to establish that he effectuated service in a manner that allows the Court to exercise jurisdiction over Moving Defendant.  The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing. 

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 14th day of December 2022