Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV23797, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV23797    Hearing Date: February 4, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

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

            On 9/16/2024, pro per Plaintiffs Jessika Blume and Tamaji Hata (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against KFT Properties, LLC (Defendant), alleging: (1) negligence; (2) general negligence; (3) loss of consortium; and (4) negligence per se.

            On 12/4/2024, Defendant moved to quash service of summons alleging defective service.

Discussion

            Defendant argues that lacks jurisdiction over it because Plaintiffs improperly served the summons and complaint on it. More specifically, Plaintiffs only sent the summons and complaint by first class mail to KFT’s principal address with no prior attempts at personal service or substitute service. The name identified on Plaintiffs’ first class mail envelope is not an individual who is designated as an agent authorized to receive service of process for Defendant.

Importantly, “[w]hen a defendant challenges that jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160 [emphasis in original] [quoting Dill v. Berquist Constr. Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-40]) That burden requires the plaintiff to show substantial compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure’s service of process statutes. (Lebel, 210 Cal.App.4th at 1165.)

Effecting service on a corporation requires delivery of summons and complaint to some person on behalf of the corporation. (See CCP. § 416.10; Dill, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 1437.) Specifically, service may be made upon any officer of the corporation or “a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process.” (CCP § 416.10.) Typically, there are four basic methods of service: personal service, substitute service, service by mail with notice and acknowledgment of receipt, and service by publication. (See CCP § 415.10 et seq.)

Here, Plaintiffs did not personally serve an officer or agent of KFT nor leave a copy of the summons and complaint at KFT’s physical address with a person “apparently in charge thereof” under CCP section 415.20(a). Instead, Plaintiffs merely mailed the summons and complaint via first class mail to KFT’s principal address, not its mailing or agent’s address. (See Kopple Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) No attempts were made at personal service and this method and manner of service does not constitute substitute service under the code because it was not left at the office of the entity, with a person apparently in charge and over 18 years old, and no mail copies followed suit.

Lastly, Plaintiffs have not filed a proper proof of service with the Court.

After review, the Court finds that the preponderance of evidence indicates that Plaintiffs failed to effectuate proper service of Defendant.

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

It is so ordered.

Dated:  February    , 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.