Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 20STCV35167, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV35167 Hearing Date: April 12, 2023 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
April 12, 2023
20STCV35167
Motion to Quash Service of the Summons filed by Defendant Angela Washington
DECISION
The motion is denied.
The answer or other responsive pleading must be filed and served within 30 days after the date of this order.
Moving party to provide notice.
Background
This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in January 2013. Plaintiff Demarc White filed his Complaint against Defendants Brake Masters, Freddie Hicks, Donnell Smith, and Angela Washington on September 15, 2020.
Defendant Angela Washington filed the instant motion to quash service of summons on December 7, 2022.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Washington seeks to quash service of summons on the grounds that she was not properly served.
Opposing Arguments
Plaintiff argues that Washington was personally served and that the statement of damages was served via substituted service.
Reply Arguments
None.
Legal Standard
“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. Proc., § 415.10 provides that a summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served. A summons may be served by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to such person or to a person authorized by him to receive service of process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 416.90.)
As long as the process server identifies himself or herself and tells the reluctant defendant that he or she is being served with process and leaves the papers as close as possible to the defendant, service is valid notwithstanding the defendant's refusal to accept. (Trujillo v. Trujillo (1945) 71 CA2d 257, 260.)
Discussion
Defendant Angela Washington moves to quash service of summons on the grounds that she was not properly served via personal service or substituted service.
Plaintiff’s proof of service of summons filed March 1, 2022 shows that Plaintiff served Washington via personal service by delivering the papers to Washington on February 28, 2022 at 9 p.m. at 10333 S. Manhattan Place, Los Angeles, CA 90047. Plaintiff’s registered process server testified to these facts in a declaration signed under penalty of perjury.
Plaintiff’s process server later served the statement of damages on Washington via substituted service. (Opp., Exh. 3.) The process server testifies under penalty of perjury that on October 27, 2022, he arrived at 10333 S. Manhattan Place, Los Angeles, CA 90047 and observed a vehicle in the driveway. (Id.) The door was open and the screen door was closed. (Id.) The process server called out multiple times, but the individual in the residence refused to come to the door. (Id.) The registered owner of the vehicle in the driveway was Marquita Corbin. (Id.) Plaintiff’s process server left copies of the papers on the porch for Washington and mailed another copy of the papers on the same day. (Id.)
Washington testifies that she was not properly served with any summons and complaint, nor were they delivered to her in an authorized fashion. (Washington Decl., ¶3.) Washington also argues that the papers were not served on her via substituted service. (Id., ¶4.)
The Court finds that the process server’s declaration is sufficient to meet Plaintiff’s burden of proving the facts requisite to effective service of the summons and complaint. In addition to the declaration, Plaintiff also provides evidence that the address listed in the process server’s declaration was determined to be that of Plaintiff.
Defendant Washington does not state that the address listed on the process server’s declaration was not her address, nor does she state that she was not personally present at that location on the date and time of service, February 28, 2022 at 9:00 p.m. Moreover, Defendant Washington does not state that she was not personally served with the complaint and summons. Defendant Washington simply asserts that she was not “properly served with the summons and complaint.” Defendant’s declaration lacks any facts challenging the service and the assertion of lack of “proper” service is not enough to overcome the declaration of the process server.
