Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV45243, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45243    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Crowley, the Fire Chief of LAFD’s motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED.

On 12/13/2021, Freedom to Choose L.A. and 4,499 other Plaintiffs filed suit against 80 Defendants alleging 15 causes of action related to COVID-19 mandates.

            Now, specially appearing Doe Defendant Kristin Crowley (Defendant Crowley) moves to quash service of summons. 

Discussion

            Defendant Crowley, the Fire Chief of LAFD as of 3/25/2022 argues that service upon her was defective because Plaintiffs failed to personally serve her by personal service.

"Personal Service" has been defined as the actual delivery of the papers to the defendant in person. (See Sternbeck v. Buck (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 829, 832.) Service of a summons in the manner of personal delivery to the person to be served is deemed complete at the time of such delivery. (See CCP § 415.10.)

Here, Crowley submitted evidence of Ring video footage that suggests that Defendant Crowley was not the individual who received service at her home. (See Crowley Decl.) As such, Plaintiffs' service of summons and the SAC on April 30, 2023 would not satisfy the statutory requirements of CCP section 415.10.

Plaintiffs’ service also would not satisfy the requirements of substitute service. CCP section 415.20 authorizes substitute service of process in lieu of personal delivery by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person's dwelling in the presence of a competent member of the household. However, for substitute service to be valid, a copy of the summons and of the complaint must be mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where the copy of the summons and complaint were left. Defendant Crowley claims that she never received any additional copies of the summons and SAC by first-class mail at her residence after April 30, 2023. (See Decl. of Kristin Crowley ¶ 21.) Plaintiffs also did not submit any supporting declaration of diligence to justify substitute service.

However, the Court need not even determine whether or not Crowley was personally served, because Plaintiff did not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b).

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b) states in part when the complaint is amended to add a defendant, the added defendant must be served and proof of service must be filed within 30 days after the filing of the amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed their SAC on January 17, 2023 alleging several causes of action specifically against Kristin Crowley. (See SAC.) On April 20, 2023, Plaintiffs electronically filed an Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious /Incorrect Name) for Fire Chief Kristin Crowley as DOE Defendant 2. (See RJN, Amendment to Complaint of DOE Defendant 2.) Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Proof of Service of Summons connected to Kristin Crowley on August 22, 2023. This indicates a lack of compliance with CRC Rule 3.110(b). Plaintiffs also failed to seek an application for modification of these requirements from the Court. (See CRC Rule 3.110(e).)

As noted by Defendant’s reply, Plaintiff failed to even address this argument in opposition, and the Court considered this concession on the merits.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Crowley’s motion to quash service of summons is granted. The Court declines to award sanctions at this time for non-compliance with CRC Rule 3.110(b).

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Aram Salmasi’s motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED.

On 12/13/2021, Freedom to Choose L.A. and 4,499 other Plaintiffs filed suit against 80 Defendants alleging 15 causes of action related to COVID-19 mandates.

            Now, specially appearing Doe Defendant Aram Salmasi (Defendant Salmasi) moves to quash service of summons. 

Discussion

            Defendant Salmasi argues that personal service upon him was defective because he did not authorize City employee Yalitza Toeldo to accept personal service on his behalf.

"Personal Service" has been defined as the actual delivery of the papers to the defendant in person. (See Sternbeck v. Buck (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 829, 832.) Service of a summons in the manner of personal delivery to the person to be served is deemed complete at the time of such delivery. (See CCP § 415.10.)

            Here, the Proof of Service of Summons indicates that the process server delivered the Summons to a person by the name of “Yalitza Toledo.” Defendant Salmasi was not the person who received the summons and SAC from the process server on May 4, 2023.

            Defendant Salmasi submitted evidence to show that Yalitza Toledo was not an authorized agent to accept service on his behalf:

-         Yalitza Toledo and 6 Defendant Salmasi were assigned to different City departments on May 4, 2023. (Salmasi Decl. ¶ ¶  8-9.) Ms. Toledo was assigned to the Department of General Services of the City of Los Angeles on May 4, 2023. (Salmasi Decl. ¶ 10.) At that time, Defendant Salmasi was assigned to the Housing Department, Community Investment Department for Families, and the Youth Development Department of the City of Los Angeles. (Salmasi Decl. ¶ 11.)

-         Defendant Salmasi never provided any verbal or written authorization for her to accept any legal documents on his behalf. Defendant Salmasi previously worked with Yalitza Toledo when he had been to the Department of General Services, but he last worked in the Department of General Services on December 2, 2022. (Salmasi Decl. ¶¶ 13-15.)

-         Yalitza Toledo did not provide the Summons and SAC to Defendant Salmasi on May 4, 2023 or anytime thereafter. Defendant Salmasi learned that he had been named as a defendant in the above-entitled action from his manager Gina Tervalon. He also never received any copies of the Summons and SAC by first-class mail, postage prepaid from the Plaintiffs attorney or anyone else. (Salmasi Decl. ¶¶ 17-19.)

The Court agrees this evidence shows defective service on Defendant Salmasi by a preponderance of the evidence.

Moreover, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b) states in part when the complaint is amended to add a defendant, the added defendant must be served and proof of service must be filed within 30 days after the filing of the amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed their SAC on January 17, 2023 alleging several causes of action specifically against Aram Salmasi. (See SAC.) On April 20, 2023, Plaintiffs electronically filed an Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious /Incorrect Name) for Aram Salmasi as DOE Defendant 2. (See RJN, Amendment to Complaint of DOE Defendant 2.) Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Proof of Service of Summons connected to Aram Salmasi on August 22, 2023. This indicates a lack of compliance with CRC Rule 3.1110(b). Plaintiffs also failed to seek an application for modification of these requirements from the Court. (See CRC Rule 3.110(e).)

As noted by Defendant’s reply, Plaintiff failed to even address this argument in opposition, and the Court considered this concession on the merits.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Salmasi’s motion to quash service of summons is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.