Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV29451, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29451    Hearing Date: November 21, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to quash is DENIED.

            On 9/9/2022, Plaintiff the Jankovich Company (Plaintiff) filed suit against Hooman Toyota of Long Beach, Hooman Hyundai of Culver City, Hooman Crysler, Hooman Nissan of Culver City, Nissani Brothers Nissan, Nissani Brothers Chevrolet, and Hooman M. Nissani, alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) account stated; (3) money due; ($) breach of contract; and (5) money due.

On 2/27/2023, Defendant Hooman Nissani (Defendant) moved to quash service of summons and complaint.

On 5/24/2023, Defendant’s motion to quash was continued to allow for supplemental materials to be filed. In particular, the Court wrote:

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that “Plaintiff submits both a proof of service and Declaration of the registered process server establishing that he served Nissani. That shifts the burden to Defendant Nissani. Defendant provides no evidence that he was not served, instead merely arguing that he did not reside or maintain an office as of February 25, 2023. But he offers no evidence that rebuts the presumption that he was indeed served with process on November 29, 2022. He does not state he was in a different location or did not reside or maintain and office at the location on the day of service. A statement that a party did not receive paperwork, without more, cannot overcome the statutory presumption of service. If it did, there would effectively be no presumption and service could be contested in every case.” (Motion, 2: 20-27.)

The Court agrees that Defendant’s declaration lacks the requisite specificity to overcome the presumption of proper service established by the use of a registered process server. More specifically, Defendant must clarify whether or not he has ever had a connection to 2170 Century Park East Apt. 1111, or would have had any reason to be there at the purported date of service on 11/29/2022.

            (5/24/2023 Minute Order)

            To date, no supplemental materials have been filed, and nothing was filed to indicate that the issue has been resolved or should be taken off calendar.

            Accordingly, without supplemental materials, the Court concludes that Defendant’s declaration lacks the requisite specificity to overcome the presumption of proper service established by the use of a registered process server.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to quash is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  November    , 2023

   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.