Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00456, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00456    Hearing Date: October 17, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      October 17, 2023                                            TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         FNM PARTNERS, a California general partnership, v. HNTEA PASADENA, INC., a California corporation; YANGSONG LIN aka LYSON LIN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00456

MOTION TO QUASH

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants HNTea Pasadena, Inc. and Yangsong Lin (“Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY:      Assignee Fidelity Capital Holdings Inc. (“Plaintiffs”)

SERVICE:                              Filed August 9, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed September 5, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed September 18, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendants move to quash service of summons.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff FNM Partners’ (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendants HNTea Pasadena, Inc. and Yangson Lin (“Defendants”) breached their lease for property located at 36 W. Colorado Blvd., Suites 5 and 6, Pasadena, California. Plaintiff filed this complaint on July 13, 2022, alleging one cause of action for breach of written lease.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

            Defendants move to quash service of summons based on failure to properly serve.

            “(a) A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, 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. [¶] (2) To stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. [¶] (3) To dismiss the action pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 583.110) of Title 8.” (Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subd. (a).)

            “When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process ‘the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’ ” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)

            “In lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served as specified in Section 416.10, 416.20, 416.30, 416.40, or 416.50, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address, other than a United States Postal Service post office box, with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. When service is effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at a mailing address, it shall be left with a person at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 415.20, subd. (a).)

            “If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, as specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, 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 other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, 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, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 415.20, subd. (b).)

On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff’s assignor, FNM Partners, filed two proofs of service that provided that Defendants were served by substituted service on July 27, 2022, at 11:10 a.m. at 14001 Newport Avenue, Tustin, California. Both proofs of service provides that the documents were left with Jane Doe. As previously stated in this court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to set aside default and default judgment, substituted service on HNTea was purportedly made at 11:10 a.m., which is outside of the business’s normal business hours. (Lin Decl. ¶ 15.) Thus, the proof of service on HNTea fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (a). Further, Lin provided that he does not regularly go into the store and that service was not made at his principal place of business as stated in some statements of information. (Id. ¶¶ 11-14.) Thus, Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden that the proof of service regarding Lin was made at his “usual place of business” or otherwise complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b).

Defendants’ motion to quash service of summons is granted.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:  October 17, 2023                                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court