Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV19367, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV19367    Hearing Date: March 25, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to quash is GRANTED.   The Court set an OSC re: monetary sanctions for Plaintiff’s counsel’s citing of cases and presenting argument based on cases which apparently do not exist for May 30, 2025, at 8:30 a.m.

            On 8/2/2024, Plaintiffs Leonel Haro and Julain De La Vara (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Giovanni Brookshire (Defendant), alleging negligence.

            On 12/31/2024, Defendant moved to quash service of summons.

Discussion

            Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ service was defective.

More specifically, Defendant contends that the Proof of Service (POS) indicates substitute service on 8/12/2024 at 4115 S. Broadway, #10, Los Angeles, CA 90044, by leaving the Summons and Complaint with "Vernette, Defendant’s Mother….” Defendant’s motion indicates that there is no evidence that he resides at this address, or that Vernette his mother.

Pursuant to CCP section 415.20(a), when personal service is impractical, service may be effectuated by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the defendant’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, or usual place of business, with a person of suitable age and discretion and then mailing a copy to the defendant at that address.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that service was proper because “public records disclose that prior to serving this case the Defendant had been most recently resident in the premises at 4115 S. Broadway #10, Los Angeles CA earlier in 2024.” (Opp., 5: 3-4.) They then cite Miller v. Sanchez (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 148, 151[1] to support their contention that service was thus proper even if Defendant had since moved to another property.

After review, the Court finds service was improper. First, Plaintiffs did not submit any evidence which could show that personal service on Defendant was impractical. Plaintiffs did not argue that Defendant evaded service, or that his current whereabouts were unascertainable. Moreover, a person’s dwelling, home, or usual abode does not include a person’s parent’s home. (Zirbes v. Stratton (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1407, 1416.) As such, the Court has no basis for finding substitute service on his mother was justified.

Second, while Plaintiff submitted a number of cases to argue that defective service is not determinative where there has been no prejudice caused to the defendant, the Court could not locate any of the cases cited. Neither Kok v. City of San Jose (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 601, 608, Ellis v. Reder (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1075, or Carter v. Cohen (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 868, 876 could be located on Westlaw or through other online searches. Given that each case is accompanied by a specific description of facts and law, the Court strongly suspects that the argument was AI generated, and counsel failed to cross-reference the information for accuracy before submitting it to this Court. Clearly, the Court will not consider argument which relies on cases which apparently do not exist.

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

It is so ordered.

Dated:  March    , 2025

   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.