Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

January 6, 2022

21STCV14145

Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by Specially Appearing Defendant Doreen Long

The motion is granted.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order. 

This is an action for negligence and motor vehicle negligence arising from a car accident which took place in May 2019. Plaintiff Melody Javaheri filed her Complaint against Defendants Molly Long and Doreen Long on April 13, 2021.

Defendant Doreen Long filed the instant motion to quash service of summons on September 13, 2022.

Moving Arguments

Defendant Doreen Long seeks to quash service of summons defective because the Complaint was served on her daughter, Defendant Molly Long. Doreen Long does not reside at Molly Long’s address, nor is her address Doreen Long’s usual mailing address or place of business.

Opposing Arguments

Plaintiff argues that Doreen Long’s motion is untimely. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Molly Long accepted service for Doreen Long and did not inform the process server that Doreen Long did not reside there.

Reply Arguments

Doreen Long argues that her motion is timely because she was never served. She also reiterates arguments from her 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).) 

Doreen Long objects to Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration submitted in opposition to her motion.

The following objections are SUSTAINED: 1, 2.

The following objections are OVERRULED: 3.

Defendant Doreen Long moves to quash service of summons on the grounds that she was never served with the Complaint in this action.

Doreen Long requests that the Court take judicial notice of the proof of service of summons and declaration of diligence filed with the Court on June 21, 2022. The request is denied as moot. The Court may always refer to the records in the case at hand.

The evidence shows that Plaintiff failed to serve Doreen Long at her dwelling house, usual place of abode, or usual place of business. Plaintiff’s proof of service filed on June 21, 2022 shows that she served Doreen Long via substituted service on June 14, 2022 at 2000 Alberta Ave. Apt. 23 Venice, CA 90291. Doreen Long testifies that she does not live at the Alberta Ave. address, nor has she ever lived there. (Doreen Long Decl., ¶¶3-4.) Doreen Long does not maintain a business or office at that address, nor does she receive mail at that address. (Id., ¶¶5-6.) Molly Long also testifies that when she was served, she informed the process server that her mother did not reside there. (Molly Long Decl., ¶3.) The process server handed her two sets of papers and did not realize the other set was for Doreen Long until after she took the papers. (Id.)

Defendant offers no evidence that Doreen Long resides at, receives mail at, or does business at 2000 Alberta Ave. Apt. 23 Venice, CA 90291. Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration states Molly Long did not inform the process server that Doreen Long did not reside there. (Artinian Decl., ¶4.) However, counsel lacks personal knowledge of what Molly Long told the process server. Additionally, Molly Long neglecting to inform the process server that Doreen Long did not reside there is no excuse for forgoing the formalities of service. 

Although Defendant argues that the motion is untimely, the deadline under Code Civ. Proc., section 418.10(a) does not apply here because Doreen Long was never served. 30 days have not passed since Doreen Long was served because she was never served.

Plaintiff fails to meet his burden of showing Doreen Long was effectively served. Thus, Doreen Long’s motion to quash service of summons is granted.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED.