Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV23093, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV23093    Hearing Date: January 3, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to quash is GRANTED. 

            On 9/9/2024, Plaintiff FN-OSM Inc. (Plaintiff) filed suit against Laby Property Group, LLC (Defendant), alleging breach of contract.

            On 12/6/2024, Defendant moved to quash service of summons.

Discussion

            Defendant argues that service in this case was defective, as the proof of service indicates that service was made at an unassociated address purportedly on its old registered agent (Mike Matzner), despite that the description in the proof of service does not match Matzner. 

            Plaintiff’s proof of service states that on 10/30/2024, service was made personally on Laby Property Group, LLC, at 28625 Forest Meadow Pl, Castaic, CA 91384, on 10/23/2024, via its old registered agent Mike Matzner.

            However, Defendant submitted evidence that the Secretary of State website lists Laby’s property management group’s address of 17547 Ventura Blvd. #304, Encino, CA 91316, for the entity (which is where Mr. Matzner works), and it also lists 5945 Canoga Ave. Woodland Hills, CA 91367 as a mailing address.

The address listed on the Proof of Service of “28625 Forest Meadow Pl, Castaic, CA 91384” is not associated with Defendant, and Defendant’s counsel indicated that he was not able to find the address listed on any document associated with Defendant.

Defendant’s counsel also submitted evidence that he has met Mr. Matzner personally, and he does not match the description of the person served in the proof of service. Mr. Matzner is a much larger individual, both in height and in weight. Defendant’s counsel does not know Mr. Matzner’s age, but would estimate he is significantly younger than 60.

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. Rather, Plaintiff indicates that counsel employed skip tracing to locate Mr. Matzner’s home address. However, Plaintiff does not set forth any legal authority to show that service of a corporation by service on the agent at their personal residence is code-compliant. (“This failure to cite pertinent legal authority is enough reason to reject the argument”); Akins v. State of California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1, 50, 71 (contention waived by failure to cite legal authority). Plaintiff also does not address the contention that the individual described in the proof of service does not match Mr. Matzner’s description.

Plaintiff also argues that this motion is untimely citing CCP section 418.10. However, Plaintiff still opposed the motion on the merits, and there is no indication of prejudice if the motion is heard.

As a final note, the Court wishes to address the procedural history of this action, as relayed by Defendant’s counsel in the moving papers. Specifically, Defendant’s counsel wrote:

Plaintiff’s counsel Nava initially reached out to the Defendant’s property manager, indicating his client held some claim, but failed to divulge the essence of the claim. Defendant’s counsel reached out to inquire, and after several follow up emails, still nothing of substance was communicated.

Eventually a phone call was had, and Defendant’s counsel recalls that the claim explained by Plaintiff’s counsel as one which was precluded by the limitations of the lease, e.g. damages limited by insurance recovery under an AIR lease, when no such recovery was had.

Plaintiff’s counsel then indicated suit had been filed. Defendant’s counsel inquired with his client as to whether it had been received, and followed up, no suit was ever served or received in any manner by the Defendant or its property management group.

Defendant’s counsel requested a copy from Plaintiff’s counsel, who, over the course of ten emails indicated only that a case had been filed, but continuously failed to provide a case number, or a conformed complaint. Eventually a file was sent, which was corrupted, and default was threatened. Defendant’s counsel responded that the file was corrupted, and that he could not file a response without even a case number, and demanded that a case number be pasted into the email if Plaintiff’s counsel was not playing games.

Defendant’s counsel, only this day, December 6, 2024, at approximately 8:00pm, finally received the case number in an email from Plaintiff’s counsel

            (Motion, 3: 8-19.)

            The Court is concerned by this conduct and advises Plaintiff’s counsel to avoid future gamesmanship and unnecessary motion practice where possible.

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

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 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.