Judge Jill Feeney, Case 20STCV25819 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Erlang Calilungseeks to quash service of summons on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to comply with the statutory requirements for substituted service. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to provide a copy of the service documents via U.S. First Class Mail.

Plaintiff argues that his registered process server made four attempts to serve Erlang before leaving the service documents with Erlang Calilung's mother-in-law. Thereafter, the process server mailed the documents to Erlang Calilung's address. Plaintiff further states that he served Erlang Calilung by personal service after the filing of this motion.

“A defendant . . . may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a).) “[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.]” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.) “[T]he 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 1441-1442.) When a defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, the plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Coulston v. Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868.) “A court lacks jurisdiction over a party if there has not been proper service of process.” (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.)

Code Civ. Pro. section 415.20 provides that “[i]f a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served . . . a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business . . . in the presence of a competent member of the household . . . at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20(b).)

Erlang Calilung seeks to quash service of summons because he has never received a copy of the service documents by mail. According to Plaintiff’s proof of service, Plaintiff’s process server served Erlang by substituted service by leaving a copy of the service documents with Erlang’s mother-in-law, Liwang Intong, at the family’s residence in Whittier, California. (Motion, Exhibit A.) On April 28, 2022, the process server mailed the service documents to Plaintiff’s address. (Id.) Defendant Julie Calilung claims that she and her husband never received a copy of the service documents in the mail. (Julie Calilung Decl., ¶7.) However, after Erlang filed the instant motion, Plaintiff served the documents by personal service and filed proof of personal service with the Court on July 25, 2022. Erlang has not challenged the validity of this service.