Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV10053, Date: 2024-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV10053    Hearing Date: December 2, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to quash is GRANTED. 

            On 4/19/2024, Plaintiff Savannah Danielle Gonzalez (Plaintiff) filed suit against Singh Lakhwinder and Sahib Transport, Inc. alleging (1) negligent operation of a motor vehicle; (2) general negligence.

            On 8/30/2024, Defendant Sahib Transport, Inc. (Defendant) moved to quash service of summons and dismiss this action.

            The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

            Defendant argues that it was improperly served in this action, and that it has no involvement.

            In support, Defendant submitted evidence that:

-         1) Per the vehicle registration Plaintiff provided for the truck at issue, the SAHIB TRANSPORT INC company involved is based in New Jersey, to which the this moving had no connection whatsoever

-         Defendant here has not owned, or has any connection with the truck that was involved in this lawsuit.

-         Defendant did not employ nor hired a person named "Singh Lakhwinder" that is named in Plaintiff's lawsuit as the driver of the truck at issue

-         Per the registration document for the truck at issue, it identities the USDOT # for the truck at issue as USDOT # 3168136 for SAHIB TRANSPORT INC in New Jersey, and provided the following link regarding the USDOT # 3168136 that is registered to SAHIB TRANSPORT INC in New Jersey.

(Motion, Exh. A.)

Moreover, Defendant notes that rather than serve the Summons on this moving party's Agent for Service of Process listed with the Secretary of State, or its officer, general manager, etc., Plaintiff purportedly served the Summons on "John DOE.” (See CCP §416.10, subds. (a), (b).

In sum, Defendant has submitted evidence that the entity named in the Complaint, and purportedly served, was not involved in the accident, nor owned the truck at issue, nor employed or hired the driver at issue. Moreover, under CCP sections 416.10(a) and §415.95(b), "the person to be served” is the "registered agent for service of process". The registered agent for service for this moving party was not "John Doe," but Amarpreet Singh who was not served.

Once service is challenged by way of a motion to quash, plaintiffs carry the burden of proving the validity of service. (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439- 40.) Here, Plaintiff has not submitted evidence to rebut Defendant’s substantial evidence indicating invalid service. The Court takes Plaintiff’s failure to oppose as a concession to the motion on the merits.

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

It is so ordered.

Dated:  December    , 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.