Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV01357, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV01357    Hearing Date: April 13, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     April 13, 2023                         TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         STRATA PASADENA SHOPS, LLC, v. BYUNG SUL JOO, and DOES 1-10, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV01357

MOTION TO QUASH

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Byung Sul Joo (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Strata Pasadena Shops, LLC

SERVICE:                              Filed March 20, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed April 5, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed April 11, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Defendant moves to quash the service of summons.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Plaintiff Strata Pasadena Shops, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) unlawful detainer claim against Defendant Byung Sul Joo (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant agreed to a 10-year lease term for property located at 245 E. Colorado Blvd., Pasadena, California 91101. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant agreed to pay $10,600.00 per month. Plaintiff filed this complaint on December 20, 2022.      

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s motion to quash is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 418.10, subd. (a).) “[W]hen jurisdiction is challenged by a nonresident defendant, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that ‘minimum contacts’ exist between defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.” (Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.) “When a nonresident defendant challenges personal jurisdiction the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all necessary jurisdictional criteria are met.” (Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232-33.)¿ 

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 1008, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

             On March 15, 2023, this court denied Defendant’s previous motion to quash and ordered Defendant to file a responsive pleading or answer within the next five days. Instead, Defendant filed another motion to quash contesting the validity of the service. In his moving papers, Defendant does not contest the validity of the substitute service at all. It is only in his reply where Defendant argues that the substitute service was ineffectual.

            Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (a), provides: “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.”

            Plaintiff filed a proof of substituted service which provides that Defendant was served by substituted service on January 16, 2023. Plaintiff provides that the documents were left in the presence of Ella Ju, an employee and person apparently in charge. In reply to this motion, Defendant provides that Ella Joo states that she was never served the summons and complaint. (Joo Decl. ¶ 2.)

            However, in the reply to his previous motion to quash, Defendant specifically did not contest the validity of service and requested that he “have 5 days to file a response to the now Ripley (sic) served summons and complaint.” (Previous Motion to Quash Reply at p. 2:8-9.) It is only in his reply to his second motion to quash, which was filed in disregard to this court’s order and Defendant’s own request for an opportunity to respond, that Defendant mentions or contests the validity of the substituted service. Additionally, Defendant’s motion is akin to a motion for reconsideration, but Defendant fails to comply with the applicable requirements.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to quash is denied.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   April 13, 2023                                   ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court