Judge John J. Kralik, Case Number: 25NNCV01243, Date: 2025-04-18 Tentative Ruling

On February 25, 2025, Plaintiff Alana Johnon (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendant Michael Saeedi (“Defendant,” a self-represented litigant). This action involves the property located at 840 E. Green St., #122, Pasadena, CA 91101. Plaintiff alleges that on September 15, 2015, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written, one-year lease agreement. On December 24, 2024, Plaintiff posted a 60-day notice to quit, such that Defendant had until February 24, 2025 to comply with the notice. Plaintiff seeks possession of the premises, costs incurred in this proceeding, past due rent of $48,000, reasonable attorney’s fees, forfeiture of the agreement, and damages in the daily rate of $100 from March 1, 2025.

On March 10, 2025, the Court entered the Order to Serve Summons by Posting for Unlawful Detainer. In process server Carlos Canas’ Declaration of Due Diligence (attached to the Application and Order to Serve Summons by Posting for Unlawful Detainer), Mr. Canas states that he attempted to serve Defendant on February 26 at 5:10 p.m. (no answer/activity), February 28 at 9:22 a.m. (no answer, someone inside), March 1 at 7:11 a.m. (no answer), and March 3 at 1:41 p.m. (no answer).

On March 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Proof of Service of Summons, showing that Defendant was served at 840 E. Green St., #122, Pasadena, CA 91101 on March 13, 2025 at 12:03 p.m. by leaving the documents at the front door. The documents were also mailed to Defendant at the same address. Service was effectuated by Carlos Canas, a California registered process server.

On April 7, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to quash service of the summons and complaint. The motion was initially set to be heard on May 9, 2025.

On April 9, 2025, the Court held the Case Management Conference where it was noted that Plaintiff appeared through her counsel and Defendant did not make an appearance. The Court on its own motion advanced the date of the hearing and continued it to April 18, 2025.

On April 11, 2025, Defendant filed a “Supplemental to Quash Service”. On April 15, 2025, Defendant filed a reply brief.

Defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, arguing that service was defective because: (1) Plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence before resorting to service by posting and mailing; (2) service was not reasonably calculated to give actual notice to Defendant; (3) the manner of service was deliberately selected to prevent Defendant from timely receiving notice and participating in this action as no Declaration of Diligence was provided and Plaintiff proximately posted a sign on his door stating that he would not return home until April 2, 2025.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Application and Order to Serve the Summons by Posting failed to attach a declaration, despite representing that a declaration was attached. He also argues that the Application states: “Please see attached declaration [¶] Building is gated by a concierge who announces visitors to residents by telephone [¶] As such tenant will not open door for process server.” (Mot., Ex. A at p.1.) However, as evidenced by Defendant’s motion papers at Exhibit A, the third page of the exhibit includes the Declaration of Due Diligence, which is signed by process server Carlos Canas. Although the Declaration of Due Diligence does not include the reason in the application for the inability to serve (i.e., the concierge), the Application is signed under the penalty of perjury by counsel Jenifer Anisman. The Court did not solely rely on the application’s allegations about the building being gated by a concierge when entering its order to allow service by posting, but instead on the evidence attached. No material misrepresentation occurred during the application process that affected the Court’s entry of the Order to Serve Summons by Posting.

Defendant also argues that Mr. Canas failed to mention that there was a clearly visible sign on Defendant’s door that stated:

We will be out of town until April 2, 2025. Plasse do not leave packages at the door. You can leave them with Prados’ friendly staff at the front desk.

(Mot., Ex. C.) Defendant states in his declaration that he was not home when the UD complaint was posted on his door and that he had posted a clearly visible notice on his door notifying delivery personnel of his absence until April 2, 2025. (Saeedi Decl., ¶2.) Based on the photograph of Defendant’s door, the sign is posted in the center of the door, while legal documents are posted around Defendant’s sign. However, Defendant’s declaration fails to state when his sign was posted.[1] Service by posting (and, thereafter, mailing) occurred on March 13, 2025. While the posted documents may look like the documents filed in this case, the Court cannot be certain based on the exhibit’s photographs.

In opposition, Plaintiff points out that while Defendant claims that he was not in town at the time of service and that he would not return until April 2, 2025, he filed documents with the Court during this time.[2] These included:

(1) a Notice of April 7 Due Date and Notice of Delayed Discovery of Defective Service and Preservation of Rights on March 27, 2025;

(2) a Request for Judicial Notice of Dismissal of Prior Unlawful Detainer Action on March 27, 2025;

(3) a Request for Judicial Notice of February 11, 2025 Injunctive Relief Action on March 28, 2025;

(4) a Request for Judicial Notice of April 15, 2024 Breach of Warranty of Habitability Complaint on March 28, 2025;

(8) Notice of Related Case: 24PDUD03208 on April 4, 2025. Plaintiff argues that Defendant has generally appeared in this action by making numerous requests for the Court to take judicial notice of documents.

Plaintiff argues that Mr. Saeedi has made a general appearance, citing to Humphrey v. Bewley (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 571:

“The determination of special appearance versus general appearance is based on the ‘character of the relief sought,’ not by statements of intention of the party. [Citation.]” (In re D.R. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 583, 593, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 283.) “ ‘ “What is determinative is whether [the] defendant takes a part in the particular action which in some manner recognizes the authority of the court to proceed.” ’ [Citations.] ‘ “[I]f an appearance is for any purpose other than to question the jurisdiction of the court[,] it is general.” ’ [Citations.]” (Sunrise Financial, LLC v. Superior Court (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 114, 125, 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 623, 631.)

(Humphrey v. Bewley (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 571, 579–580.)[3] Requesting judicial notice of documents do not challenge this Court’s jurisdiction, nor request affirmative relief for the Court to proceed; rather, requesting judicial notice of documents is a matter of recording evidence that may or may not be considered. The motion to quash will not be denied on this basis, but Plaintiff’s argument shows that Defendant was at least on notice of this lawsuit despite his representations that he would not be home until April 2, 2025. It also shows that he made himself unavailable for service for an extended period of time while actively participating in litigation with the landlord that reflects his actual notice regarding this matter.

Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s counsel deliberately withheld material facts from the Court and made misleading statements, such as facts that a related litigation was filed.[4] While other cases involving the property may give more context to this action, the other action(s) has no bearing on whether service by publication was appropriate in this action.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s counsel threatened Defendant’s process server in the related civil matter. In an email dated March 12, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel Jenifer Anisman emailed “John” stating that “Ms. Campbell” does not live at 534 West Claremont Street and that her mother, Alana Campbell, lives in the back house at 534 West Claremont and that any statement by his process server Steven McQuilken that Ms. Campbell informed him that she lived at 534 West Claremont is false, such that he would need to be “subpoenaed and proved a liar at the next hearing on this issue.” (Mot., Ex. D.) It is unclear who “John” is as Defendant’s name is Michael Saeedi. It is also unclear what relevance the property at 534 West Claremont Street has to this action, as the property in this action is located at 840 E. Green St., #122, Pasadena, CA 91101. Finally, the process server who served Defendant by posting in this action is named Carlos Canas.

Defendant has not upheld his burden in showing that service of the summons and complaint should be quashed. As such, the motion is denied.

Defendant’s motion for an order to quash service of the summons and complaint is denied. Defendant is ordered to file a responsive pleading within five days.

[1] In the opposition papers, Plaintiff argues that Defendant posted the sign on the door after being alerted by concierge about the process server. (Opp. at p.4.) However, there is no evidence to support this statement, such as a declaration from the process server or the concierge. According to Plaintiff’s declaration, she underwent 2 organ transplants and was unable to attend to her daily operations and is helpless to attend to the repair and maintenance of Unit 122, which she purchased in October 2023. (Pl.’s Decl., ¶¶2-3.) Thus, it appears that Plaintiff did not witness the posting of the sign herself, and her statements about the concierge must be based on hearsay.

[2] In the reply brief, Defendant argues that the Plaintiff implicitly waived her right to file an opposition brief by unilaterally having the hearing date on this motion advanced when he was not present at the Case Management Conference. Although the opposition brief is untimely, the Court will consider the merits of the opposition brief as Defendant filed a reply brief, which responds to the procedural defects (Reply at pp. 3-5) and the substantive arguments (Reply at pp. 5-10) in the opposition papers.

[3] In the reply brief, Defendant “quotes” Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127 and Roy v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 337, 343-344. (Reply at 9:4-11.) The Court conducted a search of the purported quotations and was unable to find the quotations in the cases.

[4] On April 4, 2025, Defendant filed a Notice of Related Cases disclosing the following:

· 24STCV09336, Michael Seedi v. The Bartlett Trust, et al.: This case was filed on April 15, 2024 and is assigned to Department 73 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. It alleges causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied warranty of habitability, breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, negligence, and IIED against The Bartlett Trust, Morton Edythe Roberts, and Alana Roberts Johnson.

· 24PDUD03208, Alana Jonhson v. Michael Saeedi: This case was filed on September 11, 2024 and involves a UD action on the same property. On December 19, 2024, Johnson dismissed without prejudice the entire action and all causes of action. In the opposition papers, Plaintiff explains that this case was dismissed because a copy of the summons and complaint was not emailed to the Pasadena Department of Housing within 3 days of filing. (Opp. at p.3.)

· (This action 25NNCV01243 was filed on February 25, 2025.)

· 25NNCV00954, Michael Seedi v. Alana Johnson, et al.: This case was filed on February 11, 2025. Saeedi sued in part for retaliatory eviction, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, and breach of contract. The case is assigned to Department E of the Glendale Courthouse.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department B