Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 24STCV34250, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV34250    Hearing Date: April 21, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY:  Defendant City of Beverly Hills, (“Defendant”) erroneously named as City of Los Angeles – Beverly Hills Library Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: None

            The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed.  

BACKGROUND

             On December 27, 2024, Laura Duffy (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendant alleging a single cause of action for breach of contract.

            On February 7, 2025, Defendant filed the instant motion to quash (the “Motion”). The Motion is unopposed.                   

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].)

            Defendant moves to quash service of the summons and Complaint on grounds that it has not been properly served. Defendant asserts that the summons and Complaint were directly mailed and addressed to City of Los Angeles - Beverly Hills Library Inc. (Mot., p. 4:19-20.) This does not satisfy the service requirements of CCP sections 416.50 subdivision (a), 415.20 subdivision (a) or 415.30 subdivision (a). Defendant has presented admissible declarations placing the issue of lack of jurisdiction before the Court. (Buth Decl., Ahmed Decl., Madrigal Decl.) Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service for the summons and Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff has 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 21st day of April 2025