Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV41109, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV41109 Hearing Date: January 19, 2024 Dept: 56
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
Plaintiffs, vs. DOE ARCHDIOCESE, et al.,
Defendants. |
|
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS Date: January 22, 2024 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 |
MOVING
PARTY: Specially Appearing Defendants Doe Archdiocese and Doe Seminary
(collectively, “Moving Defendants”)
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 December 30, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint (the “Complaint”)
alleging: (1) negligence; (2) negligent supervision; (3) negligent
hiring/retention; (4) negligent supervision of a minor; and (5) vicarious
liability.
On October 10, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a
motion to quash service of the Complaint and dismiss the action on the grounds
that there has not been proper service to establish jurisdiction over them.
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 Defendants contend that the Complaint and summons
were not properly served by Plaintiffs.
The majority of the Motion argues that Plaintiffs failed to comply with
the procedural preconditions for establishing jurisdiction set forth in the
version of CCP section 340.1, subdivision (g) that applies to this action. (See CA LEGIS 444 (2022), 2022 Cal.
Legis. Serv. Ch. 444 (A.B. 2959).)[1] As
the Motion is unopposed, Plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden of
demonstrating the requisite facts to establish 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 22nd day of January 2024
|
|
|
|
|
Hon.
Holly J. Fujie Judge
of the Superior Court |
[1] The applicable version of CCP
section 340.1 requires plaintiffs over the age of 40 in actions seeking damages
for childhood sexual assault to execute certificates of merit at the time the
action is filed. Plaintiffs did not file
certificates of merit at the time they filed the Complaint. The Court notes that when the Complaint was
filed on December 30, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel contemporaneously filed a
declaration that references CCP section 340.1, subdivision (g)(3). On February 28, 2023, Plaintiffs lodged
certificates of merit under CCP section 340.1, subdivision (g)(1)-(g)(2).
