Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC02846, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC02846    Hearing Date: July 26, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants Yaron Hochdorf, Adi Weinberg

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff Hyun Sang Joo

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

(CCP § 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Yaron Hochdorf and Adi Weinberg’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is CONTINUED TO AUGUST 25, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  At least 16 court days before the continued hearing, Defendants must file and serve supplemental papers as requested herein.  Failure to do so will result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 NOT OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          Filed on July 14, 2022.                                    [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of July 21, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On April 25, 2022, Plaintiff Hyun Sang Joo (“Plaintiff”), in propria persona, filed an action against Defendants Yaron Hochdorf, Adi Weinberg, and Grout Linscott (collectively, “Defendants”) for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation.

On May 26, 2022, Counsel for Defendant Grant Linscott, filed a declaration attesting to his inability to meet and confer with Plaintiff, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 430.41 and 435.5.  (Brousseau Decl.)  On May 31, 2022, Counsel for Defendants Yaron Hochdorf and Adi Weinberg filed a declaration attesting to his inability to meet and confer with Plaintiff and sought a 30-day extension to file responsive pleadings, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.41(a)(2).

On June 24, 2022, following the Plaintiff’s request, the Court dismissed Defendant Grant Linscott from the action.

On July 1, 2022, Defendants Hochdorf and Weinberg filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons (“the Motion”).  Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 14, 2022.

II.              Legal Standard

“‘Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.’ [Citation.]”  (AO Alfa-Bank v. Yakovlev (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 189, 202.)  “To establish personal jurisdiction, compliance with statutory procedures for service of process is essential.”  (Kremerman v. White (2021). 71 Cal.App.5th 358, 371.)  Defendant’s knowledge of the action does not dispense with statutory requirements for service of summons.  (Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1457, 1466.)

            “A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow” may move “to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her” that results from lack of proper service.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 418.10(a)(1).  A defendant has 30 days after the service of the summons to file a responsive pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 412.20(a)(3).)

            “When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process ‘the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)

III.       Discussion

            Prior to analyzing the Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons, the Court notes that Defendants have not filed Proof of Service to demonstrate the Plaintiff has been served with a copy of the Notice of Motion and Motion.

            The Proof of Service filed with the Motion, indicates that the document served on the Plaintiff is “Declaration of Yaron Hochdorf in Support of Motion to Quash Service of Summons.”  The Proof of Service filed with the Declaration of Yaron Hochdorf, indicates that the document served on the Plaintiff is “Declaration of Yaron Hochdorf in Support of Motion to Quash Service of Summons.”  And finally, the Proof of Service filed with the Declaration of Adi Weinberg, indicates that the document served on the Plaintiff is “Declaration of Adi Weinberg in Support of Motion to Quash Service of Summons.”  There is no Proof of Service for the Notice of Motion and Motion.

            Defendants’ Motion to Quash is CONTINUED to allow Defendants an opportunity to submit Proof of Service of the Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash, showing that Plaintiff was properly served with these documents.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Yaron Hochdorf and Adi Weinberg’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is CONTINUED TO AUGUST 25, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  At least 16 court days before the continued hearing, Defendants must file and serve supplemental papers as requested herein.  Failure to do so will result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.