Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV10731, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10731    Hearing Date: January 26, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Specially Appearing Defendants Leonid Krupitski, Irina Krupitski Eduard Reitshtein, and Pnina Reitshtein (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)

OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff Carmen John Perri

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

BACKGROUND

            On July 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed the currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleging violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

On September 15, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a motion to quash service of the FAC and dismiss the action (the “Motion”) on the ground 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).)  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.)  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.) 

            The Motion argues that Plaintiff did not serve Moving Defendants with the FAC and summons.  Plaintiff’s opposition (the “Opposition”) notes that proofs of service were filed on October 18, 2023.  The proofs of service in the Court’s records indicate that Moving Defendants were served with the FAC and summons by substitute service by a registered process server.  The Motion is therefore DENIED.  Moving Defendants are ordered to file a responsive pleading within 20 days of the date of this order.

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 26th day of January 2024