Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

YU ZHENG CHEN,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BRADLEY P. CHILDERS, et al.,

Defendants. Case No.: 23STCV28097

MOTIONS TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS FILED BY DEFENDANTS HIRANO AND CHILDERS

The motions to quash service of summons filed by Defendants Hirano and Childers are GRANTED.

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

FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

This is an action breach of contract, forgery of documents, and forgery of evidence. The Complaint contains no facts about the events giving rise to this action.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendants Bradley Childers, Ronald Hirano, Jay Wu, Chia-Chen Lin, Shao Xing Yang, Kevin Yen-Po Chen, and LTG South Hills, LLC.

On December 26, 2023, Ronald Hirano filed a motion to quash service of summons.

On December 28, 2023, Bradley Childers filed a motion to quash service of summons.

DISCUSSION 

Defendants Hirano and Childers move to quash service of summons on the grounds that Plaintiff improperly served them by handing the summons and Complaint to them himself. 

“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).) The motion must be filed on or before the last day on which the defendant must plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow. (Id.)

“[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., section 414.10 provides that a summons may be served by any person who is at least 18 years of age and not a party to the action. 

Here, Childers and Hirano both testify that Plaintiff personally handed copies of the summons and complaint to them. (Childers Decl., ¶5, Hirano Decl., ¶3.) 

Service on Childers and Hirano was not proper because Plaintiff is a party to this action and may not serve the summons on Childers and Hirano under Code Civ. Proc., section 414.10. The Court lacks jurisdiction over these parties because service was not proper. Therefore, the motion is granted.

DATED: February 5, 2024 

____________________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court