Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV36848, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36848    Hearing Date: August 20, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Jahi Johnson (“Plaintiff”) moves to quash service of the Cross-Complaint and related summons filed by Defendant and Cross-Complainant Jabe Burton (“Burton”).

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.  Plaintiff participated in court in proceedings involving the Cross-Complaint.  This constitutes a general appearance that moots Plaintiff’s motion.

Background

This is a landlord-tenant case.

Plaintiff owns the property located at 3450 W Cahuenga Blvd #506, Los Angeles, CA 90068 (the “Property”). Defendants Leovigildo Sanchez (“Sanchez”) and Burton (collectively, “Defendants”) were tenants at the property since prior to Plaintiff’s ownership.

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on November 22, 2022, alleging that Defendants owed unpaid rent and seeking recovery of back rent.

On September 7, 2023, Burton filed the Cross-complaint against Plaintiff, raising claims for (1) retaliation; (2) influencing to vacate; (3) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) breach of warranty of habitability; (5) personal injury; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); and (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”).

On September 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of the Complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the request.

On July 25, 2024, Plaintiff moved to quash service of the summons and Cross-Complaint. Burton filed an opposition. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

Discussion

Without valid service of a summons, the court never acquires jurisdiction over a defendant. Hence, the statutory ground for the motion to quash is that the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., §418.10, subd. (a)(1).) Code of Civ. Proc. §418.10 authorizes a motion to quash service of summons within the time allowed for filing a response to the complaint. If the motion is timely made, “no act” by the party making such motion, “including filing an answer, demurrer or motion to strike,” shall be deemed a general appearance. (Code Civ. Proc., §418.10, subd. (e)(1).)¿ 

“Except as otherwise provided by statute, the court in which an action is pending has jurisdiction over a party from the time summons is served on him as provided by Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10). A general appearance by a party is equivalent to personal service of summons on such party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.50.)

“[A] party who seeks relief on any basis other than a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction will be deemed to have made a general appearance and waived all objections to defects in service, process, or personal jurisdiction.” (Dial 800 v. Fesbinder (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 32, 52.)

Plaintiff made a general appearance when he sought relief from the Court by filing the Complaint. This is true even though Plaintiff subsequently dismissed the Complaint after the Cross-Complaint was filed.

Moreover, Plaintiff made a number of appearances in this matter when the only matter pending was the Cross-Complaint.  Plaintiff’s original complaint had been dismissed on November 11, 2023, leaving only the cross-complaint pending.  Plaintiff made appearances at the case management conferences on November 29, 2023; February 7, 2024; May 1; 2024; and July 31, 2024.  These were all proceedings relating to the cross-complaint. 

Because Plaintiff has made general appearances in this case, he has waived all objections to defects in service, process, and personal jurisdiction.

The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion.