Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV01780, Date: 2023-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY.Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

THANK YOU!

Case Number: 23BBCV01780    Hearing Date: September 26, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff OZH Holding 1 LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendant Rajeeyah Muhammad (“Defendant”) on August 3, 2023.  The property at issue is located at 11058 Chandler Blvd., #3026, North Hollywood, CA 91601.  Plaintiff alleges that it entered into a written lease agreement with Defendant on October 1, 2022.  Plaintiff alleges that it served on Defendant a 3/30 Day Notice to Pay or Quit on July 21, 2023.  Plaintiff seeks possession of the premises, costs incurred in this proceeding, past due rent of $3,992.35, reasonable attorney’s fees, forfeiture of the agreement, and damages at the rate of $116.63 per day since July 1, 2023.

B.     Motion on Calendar and Relevant Background

On September 1, 2023, Defendant (a self-represented litigant) filed a motion to quash service of the summons and complaint.

On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief.

On September 14, 2023, the Court granted the ex parte application to advance the hearing date on Defendant’s motion from October 6, 2023 to September 26, 2023. 

DISCUSSION

A.    Proof of Service

The proof of service of the summons (filed September 12, 2023) states that Defendant was served on August 23, 2023 at 4:02 p.m. by leaving the documents with “JOHN DOE (REFUSED TO GIVE NAME), Competent member of the household” (Race: black; Sex: male; Age: 45; Height: 5’10”; Weight: 185; Hair: black) at the subject property.  The documents were thereafter mailed on August 23, 2023.  Service was effectuated by Rigoberto Tellez, a registered California process server.  A declaration of diligence is attached, showing that Mr. Tellez attempted to effectuate service on August 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 23 at different times of the day at the subject location. 

On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service of the summons and complaint with respect to All Other Occupants in Possession, stating that service was completed by substituted service on August 23, 2023 at 4:02 p.m. on a John Doe at the subject premises.  The documents were thereafter mailed.

B.     Discussion of Merits

Defendant moves to quash the service of the summons and complaint, arguing that he was never served.  He argues that he only received notice of the unlawful detainer mailed from the Court.  He argues that no notice to terminate tenancy was filed with the Los Angeles Housing Department pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code § 151.09.C.9 and 165.05.B.5.  He requests that the action be dismissed. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s motion includes substantive arguments regarding the truth of the allegations and that the motion to quash is not a demurrer nor an answer.  Plaintiff argues that the motion should be denied because it properly served Defendant with the use of a registered process server. 

The Court denies Defendant’s motion to quash.  As pointed out by Plaintiff, Defendant cannot dispute the merits of the complaint unless he is choosing to generally appear in the action. 

In addition, filing a proof of service that complies with statutory standards creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper.  (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1441.)  Plaintiff filed the proof of service of the summons and complaint after Defendant filed his motion to quash.  The proof of service shows that Defendant was served by substituted service at his home and that the documents were thereafter mailed.  In the moving papers, Defendant does not argue that service was improper, that he was not home at the time of service, and that he did not receive the documents from substituted service or by mailing. Defendant only provides two pages of arguments in his motion, but does not provide a declaration in support of his motion.  Based on the documents before the Court, service appears to have been properly effectuated.  Whether the 3/30 day notice was properly served or whether Plaintiff complied with the Municipal Code will have to be determined at a later stage.  A motion to quash is not the proper method to make such arguments.

For these reasons, the motion to quash is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Defendant Rajeeyah Muhammad’s motion to quash the service of the summons and complaint is denied.  Defendant is ordered to file a responsive pleading within 5 days of this order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.