Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV29999, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29999    Hearing Date: February 16, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Specially Appearing Defendant Robert T. Wang, M.D. (“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

            On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) general negligence; (2) professional negligence; (3) wrongful death; (4) elder abuse; and (5) violation of the Eighth Amendment

On January 19, 2024, Moving Defendant filed a motion to quash service of summons (the “Motion”) on the grounds that the Complaint and summons were improperly served.

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.)

            Moving Defendant contends that the attempt at personal service on December 21, 2023 was improper.  (See Declaration of Robert T. Wang (“Wang Decl.”) ¶ 3.)  As it is unopposed, Plaintiff has not satisfied the burden of demonstrating that service was proper.  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.

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 16th day of February 2024