Judge James C. Chalfant, Case Number: 25STCP00774, Date: 2025-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Svyatoslav Parenago v. City of Los Angeles, 25STCP00774
Tentative decision on motion to quash: granted

Respondent City of Los Angeles, sued as City of Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation (“City”) moves to quash the service of the summons by Petitioner Svyatoslav Parenago (“Parenago”).

The court has read and considered the moving papers (no opposition was filed), and renders the following tentative decision.

Petitioner Parenago filed his Petition for Writ of Mandamus on February 27, 2025 seeking an order compelling the City to defer a $23,073 Annual License Application (“Application”) fee (“Application Fee”) until license issuance. The Petition[1] alleges in pertinent part as follows.

In 2024, Parenago refiled an Annual License Application with the City for three cannabis activities, paying $12,699. Pet., 3:13-15.

The City’s CEQA review delayed issuance until June 2025, a prerequisite for the City to issue Parenago’s licenses. Pet., 3:17-18. Parenago cannot operate his business until his license issues. Pet., 3:17-18.

In February 2025, the City demanded a $23,073 Application Fee, $7,691 per cannabis activity under LAMC section 104.19(a), to be paid by February 28, 2025, citing its 2023 migration to annual licenses. Pet., 3:20-22. If Parenago does not pay, he risks abandoning his Application and original $12,699 payment with no refiling permitted under LAMC section 104.03(h). Pet., 3:23-25.

Parenago does not yet have revenue from his business and is paying expenses through a loan from a family friend. Pet., 3:27-28.

LAMC section 104.19(a) requires the Application Fee at the time the Application is filed, unless deferred under LAMC section 104.20. Pet., 4:4-5. Filing is incomplete until CEQA review concludes. Pet., 4:6-7. LAMC section 104.20(c)(4)(ii) allows deferrals for social equity applicants “until the Licensee is authorized to commence Commercial Cannabis Activity.” Pet., 4:9-110.

The City’s demand for payment now, despite the fact that Parenago is not yet authorized to commence Commercial Cannabis Activity, is arbitrary and capricious and in violation of law. Pet., 4:10-15.

Parenago seeks a writ of mandate ordering the City to defer the Application Fee until June 2025 or until his license issues. Pet., 4:19-20.

A proof of service on file using form POS-020 (for civil proof of service other than summons and complaint) shows a February 28, 2025 service of the Petition on Luis Solares at the front desk of 221 N. Figueroa St., Suite 1245, Los Angeles, California 90012.

Another proof of service on file using form POS-020 shows a February 28, 2025 service of an ex parte application for temporary restraining order also on Luis Solares.

Finally, a third proof of service on form POS-020 shows a March 11, 2025 service of a renewed ex parte application for temporary restraining order also on Luis Solares.

A summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served. CCP §415.10.

There are three ways to serve a public entity with process. “A summons may be served on a public entity by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the clerk, secretary, president, presiding officer, or other head of its governing body”. CCP §416.50(a). The summons may also be served on a public entity “by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours” in the office of the person to be served under CCP section 416.50(a) or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address, and “by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left”. CCP §415.20. Finally, summons may be served on a public entity by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the public entity with a notice and acknowledgment of receipt. CCP §415.30.

For a mandamus case, the reference to a summons in these statutes is misleading. A summons is not required for traditional or administrative mandate proceedings in California. Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court, (“Board of Supervisors”) (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 830, 834, n. 2. (“[T]he statutes do not appear to require that a summons be served in mandamus proceedings.”) “It should be noted that in mandate proceedings, the traditional summons is not used.” Id. at 842, n. 9. Rather, it is service of the petition that is required.

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(a)(1). The rationale behind this statute is that compliance with the statutory procedures for service of process are essential to establish personal jurisdiction. See Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co., Ltd.,¿(2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 115, 133. Failure to conform to statutory requirements means that all that follows is void. Honda Motor Co. v. Superior Court,¿(1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048.

In a motion to quash, the defendant is the moving party and must present some admissible evidence (declarations or affidavits) to place the issue before the court. However, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, valid service of process in conformance with this state’s service statutes. See School Dist. of Okaloosa County v. Superior Court,¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1131.

Patrick Hagan, Esq. (“Hagan”) has worked for the City for over eight years and is personally familiar with the location of the City Clerk’s office, located at City Hall, 200 N Spring St, Room 260, Los Angeles California 90012. Hagan Decl., ¶2. Hagan is unaware of any office administered by the City Clerk, or any secretary, president, presiding officer, or other head of the City’s governing body that has an office or mailing address at 221 N. Figueroa Street. Hagan Decl., ¶2.

Hagan has represented the City’s Department of Cannabis Regulation (“Department”) for over two years and is familiar with all of the people employed by the Department. Hagan Decl., ¶3. No one named Luis Solares works for the Department. Hagan Decl., ¶3. Luis Solares may be a first-floor security guard employed by CBRE, the owner of the premises where the Department’s offices are located (along with those of many other departments and entities). Hagan Decl., ¶3. Hagan is unaware of anyone else to whom “Luis Solares” may refer. Hagan Decl., ¶3.

The City moves to quash service of the Petition. The City shows that it has not been served in any of the three permissible manners of CCP sections 416.50(a), 415.20, or 415.30. Although this motion appears to be a waste of time, the court lacks personal jurisdiction. Parenago is directed to serve the Petition at the City Clerk’s located at City Hall, 200 N Spring St, Room 260, Los Angeles California 90012 in compliance with CCP section 416.50(a), and then file proof of service on the correct form.

[1] The Petition paragraphs are not numbered, nor are the pages. The court will cite to the Petition using page and line numbers, beginning with the caption page as page one.