Judge Jill Feeney, Case Number: 23STCV03543, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s proofs of service filed March 28, 2023 as to Defendants Irfan Sajjad Ahmed and Nasir state that they moved back to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates around 2022. Plaintiff’s process server served Ahmed by leaving the papers with Ahmed’s sister-in-law at an address in Irvine, California and mailing the papers to the same address. The process server served the papers for Nasir at a shared/virtual office space in Orange, California where a receptionist verified Connect Emerald had an office on that floor. The Court is concerned that Ahmed and Nasir were not properly served.

Code Civ. Proc., section 413.10 provides that a summons shall be served on a person outside the United states “as provided in this chapter or as directed by the court in which the action is pending, or, if the court before or after service finds that the service is reasonably calculated to give actual notice, as prescribed by the law of the place where the person is served or as directed by the foreign authority in response to a letter rogatory.”

Here, Plaintiff served Ahmed and Nasir via substituted service. Code Civ. Proc., section 415.2 provides that Code Civ. Proc. 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, or usual mailing address . . . 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…to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., section 415.20(b).) Service of a summons in this matter is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing. (Id.)

Here, Ahmed and Nasir no longer live in Irvine, California and there was no indication that Nasir’s brother’s home is their usual mailing address. Although Plaintiff served Nasir at a shared/virtual office space, the evidence is insufficient to show that the office space is Nasir’s usual place of business given that she lives in Dubai.

The Court is concerned that it does not have personal jurisdiction over all of the Defendants. “Lack of personal jurisdiction renders a judgment (or default) void, and the default may be directly challenged at any time.” (Strathvale Holdings v. E.B.H. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249.)