Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00874, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00874    Hearing Date: December 8, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff R.A., by and through her guardian ad litem Ghassan Abusal (“Plaintiff”), alleges that she and her parents lived at 7727 Lankershim Blvd., #201, North Hollywood, CA 91605 at Villa California apartment community.  Plaintiff alleges that on October 13, 2018, she was in her bedroom looking out the window.  She alleges that she pressed on the window screen, causing it to easily detach from the window frame, which subsequently caused her to fall out of the window from the second story of the premises. 

Defendant Academy Pointe, Inc. (“Academy”) is alleged to the the owner of the premises.  Defendant J.K. Residential Services, Inc. (“JKR”) is alleged to have overseen the premises.  Defendant Management Company dba Villa California (“Anza”) is alleged to be the management company for the property.   

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed October 23, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) premises liability; (2) general negligence; (3) violation of City of Los Angeles Municipal Code § 91.101.1; and (4) violation of 1985 City of Los Angeles Building Code § 1711. 

B.     Motions on Calendar

On September 21, 2023, Defendants Academy and JKR filed a motion to quash service of the summons and complaint.

On October 19, 2023, Academy and JKR filed a second motion to quash service of the summons and complaint. 

The Court is not in receipt of opposition briefs. 

DISCUSSION RE SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 MOTION

A.    Proofs of Service

The proof of service directed at Academy states that Academy was personally served on August 1, 2023 at 1:42 p.m. at 2016 Riverside Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90039, by serving the documents with the authorized agent, “John Doe (refused name), Employee Authorized to Accept. Asian Male, est. age 35, glasses: No, Black hair, 100 lbs to 120 lbs, 5’3” to 5’6”.”  The proof of service is accompanied by a Declaration of Diligence showing that 4 attempts of service were made at the Riverside address from July 28, 2023 to August 1, 2023.  Service was effectuated by Dean DeVito, a registered California process server. 

The proof of service directed at JKR states that JKR was personally served by the same means as Academy. 

B.     Discussion of Merits

Academy and JKR move to quash service of the summons and complaint on them based on the August 22, 2023 proofs of service.

The Court notes that subsequent to the filing of the August 22, 2023 proofs of service and the filing of the first motion to quash on September 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed proofs of service of the summons and complaint on Academy and JKR on September 25, 2023. 

As such, the Court will take the September 21, 2023 motion to quash off-calendar as moot in light of the updated proofs of service filed with the Court.  The September 21, 2023 filed proofs of service shall be considered the “operative” proofs of service as directed against Academy and JKR.

DISCUSSION RE OCTOBER 19, 2023 MOTION

A.    Proofs of Service

The proof of service directed at Academy states that Academy was personally served on September 21, 2023 at 1:54 p.m. at 3705 El Moreno St., La Crescenta-Montrose, CA 91214, by serving the documents with the authorized agent, “Luna Desai, Employee Authorized to Accept.”  Service was effectuated by Mike Melendez, a registered California process server. 

The proof of service directed at JKR states that JKR was personally served by the same means as Academy.  However, page 2 of the proof of service is not completed, such that it fails to complete sections 6 (how the notice to the person served was completed), does not check off the boxes in section 7 (re who served the papers), and is not signed Mr. Melendez.

B.     Discussion of Merits

Academy and JKR move to quash service of the summons and complaint on them based on the August 22, 2023 proofs of service.

            Academy and JKR argue that there is no indication that Mr. Melendez made any determination that “Luna Desai” was over the age of 18 years old, there is no one by the name of “Luna Desai” that is known to Ritesh Desai, who is the sole agent for service of process, and this fictitious “Luna Desai” is not an employee of Academy or JKR.  Ritesh Desai states that he is the only agent of service of process listed on the California Secretary of state website for Academy and JKR and that the agent’s address is 2016 Riverside Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90039.  (Desai Decl., ¶2.)  He states that as the agent for service of process, he is familiar with the fact that Academy and JKR have not authorized any person named “Luna Desai” as the authorized agent and there is no “Luna Desai” as an employee.  (Id., ¶3.)  He states that he is not personally aware of anyone by the name of “Luna Desai.”  (Id., ¶4.)  He states that he has not been personally served with the summons and complaint in this action.  (Id., ¶5.)

            Academy and JKR have shown that they were not properly served with the summons and complaint by personal service on September 21, 2023.  Their agent for service of process, Ritesh Desai, states that he was never personally served with the documents and that the person purportedly served (Luna Desai) does not exist and is not authorized to accept service on behalf of the companies.  Further, as noted above, the proof of service directed against JKR was not properly filled out and signed. 

            For these reasons, the motion to quash is granted. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Defendants Academy Pointe, Inc. and J.K. Residential Services, Inc.’s first motion to quash the service of the summons and complaint (filed on September 21, 2023, reservation number -6316) is taken off-calendar as moot in light of the updated proofs of service that were subsequently filed by Plaintiff. 

Defendants Academy Pointe, Inc. and J.K. Residential Services, Inc.’s second motion to quash the service of the summons and complaint (filed on October 19, 2023, reservation number -1128) is granted.   

The Court will note that while Defendants have the right to insist on proper service, they are apparently difficult to serve.  At this point, insisting on further service does little more than increase the cost of the litigation to both parties, and delays inevitable proceedings.  Defendants are encouraged to discuss service with Plaintiff’s attorney to determine what arrangements can be agreed on that will set a tone of civility for the litigation.

Defendants shall provide notice of this order.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:  All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.