Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV01735, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01735    Hearing Date: March 8, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.   Allegations

Plaintiffs Sargon Restoration, Inc. (“Restoration”), Environmental Abatement, Inc. (“Abatement”), and L.Y. Environmental, Inc. (“L.Y.”) allege that they each entered into an agreement with Defendant Morrison Studios, Ltd. L.P. (“Defendant”) by which Plaintiffs each agreed to furnish certain labor, services, equipment, and materials for a work of improvement at the property located at 5001 Lankershim Boulevard, North Hollywood, CA 91601.  Plaintiffs allege that they performed all conditions and obligations required, but Defendants breached their contractual obligations by failing and refusing to compensate each of the Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs allege that the “reasonable value and market price of said labor, services, equipment, and materials when provided and at all relevant times herein mentioned and now is as follows: (1) the sum of $378,950.05 to Restoration for fire and water restoration; (2) the sum of $16,000.00 to Abatement for construction and fire/water restoration; and (3) the sum of $6,375.00 to L.Y. for environmental testing.”  (Compl., ¶8.) 

The complaint, filed July 31, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract (Restoration); (2) breach of contract (Abatement); (3) breach of contract (L.Y.); (4) foreclosure of mechanic’s lien (Restoration); (5) foreclosure of mechanic’s lien (Abatement); (6) foreclosure of mechanic’s lien (L.Y.); (7) Quantum Meruit (Restoration); (8) Quantum Meruit (Abatement); and (9) Quantum Meruit (L.Y.). 

B.    Relevant Background

On October 16, 2023, the Court held an OSC re: Failure to File Proof of Service of the Summons and Complaint and noted that no proof of service had been filed in this action.  Plaintiffs’ counsel represented that he was still trying to serve Defendant with the summons and complaint. 

On February 1, 2024, the Court held a Case Management Conference and OSC re: Failure to File Proof of Service of the Summons and Complaint, where the Court again noted that a proof of service had not yet been filed.  The Court discharged the OSC in light of the pending motion for order authorizing substituted service on the Secretary of State.    

C.    Motion on Calendar

On December 12, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion for order authorizing substituted service on the Secretary of State. 

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs move for an order authorizing substituted service on the Secretary of State pursuant to Corporations Code, § 17701.16(c) against Defendant.

Corporations Code, § 11701.16(c) states:

(c) If an agent for service of process has resigned and has not been replaced or if the designated agent cannot with reasonable diligence be found at the address designated for personal delivery of the process, and it is shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court that process against a limited liability company or foreign limited liability company cannot be served with reasonable diligence upon the designated agent by hand in the manner provided in Section 415.10, subdivision (a) of Section 415.20, or subdivision (a) of Section 415.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may make an order that the service shall be made upon a domestic limited liability company or upon a registered foreign limited liability company by delivering by hand to the Secretary of State, or to any person employed in the Secretary of State's office in the capacity of assistant or deputy, one copy of the process for each defendant to be served, together with a copy of the order authorizing the service. Service in this manner shall be deemed complete on the 10th day after delivery of the process to the Secretary of State.

(Corp. Code, § 17701.16(c).)

In support of the motion, Plaintiffs provide the declaration of attorney Joseph Kerendian.  Mr. Kerendian states that Plaintiffs they have made 5 attempts to personally serve Defendant’s registered agent for service, Galia Guedikian at 11111 Morrison Street, North Hollywood, California 91601, without success.  (Kerendian Decl., ¶6.)  He states that Plaintiffs also attempted to serve defense counsel on December 1, 2023 by email to see if defense counsel would accept service on behalf of Defendant, but defense counsel failed to respond or accept service.  (Id., ¶¶6, 8.)  Mr. Kerendian refers to an Exhibit A, which supposedly includes a Declaration of Diligence; however, no exhibits are attached to the moving papers.  (Id., ¶¶6-7, Ex. A [not attached].) 

Plaintiffs seek relief pursuant to Corporations Code, § 17701.16, arguing that it attempted to serve Defendant’s registered agent for service of process multiple times at different addresses, but Plaintiffs have been unable to serve Defendant.  The Court is inclined to grant the motion, but will order Plaintiffs to file a copy of the Declaration of Diligence for the Court’s review. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            The Court is inclined to grant Plaintiffs Sargon Restoration, Inc., Environmental Abatement, Inc., and L.Y. Environmental, Inc.’s motion for order authorizing substituted service on the Secretary of State regarding Defendant Morrison Studios, Ltd. L.P.  However, the motion is continued to March 15, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in order to provide Plaintiffs time to file Exhibit A to their motion.  Plaintiffs are ordered to file the Exhibit A referred to in their moving papers by the end of the business day on March 11, 2024.