Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 22STLC02846 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Defendants Yaron Hochdorf and Adi Weinberg’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

On April 25, 2022, Plaintiff Hyun Sang Joo (“Plaintiff”), in propria persona, filed an action against Defendants Yaron Hochdorf (“Hochdorf”), Adi Weinberg (“Weinberg”), and Grout Linscott (“Linscott”), (collectively, “Defendants”), for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation arising out of a real property transaction and subsequent construction. Defendant Hochdorf allegedly sold the property to Plaintiff and Defendant Weinberg allegedly provided construction services. (Compl. p. 1.)

On May 26, 2022, Counsel for Defendant Linscott, filed a declaration attesting to his inability to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding a possible demurrer, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 430.41 and 435.5. (Brousseau Decl.) On May 31, 2022, Counsel for Defendants Hochdorf and 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 Linscott and Does 1-10 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. On July 26, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion to allow Defendants an opportunity to file Proof of Service of the Notice of Motion and Motion. On August 5, 2022, Defendants filed Proof of Service of Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint[1].

“‘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.)

Here, Defendants seek to quash the service of summons and complaint on several grounds. First, they argue that Plaintiff has not filed a Proof of Service with the Court. (Mot. p. 4.) The Court notes that to date, a Proof of Service of the Summons and Complaint has not been filed.

Defendant Hochdorf states that he was not served personally, by substitute service, or by mail. (Hochdorf Decl. ¶¶ 3-4; Mot. pp. 4-7.) He claims that Plaintiff sent the Summons and Complaint to the old address of Metatron LA 3^rd Group, LLC, the company listed on the Agreement for the sale of the real property. (Hochdorf Decl. ¶ 3; Exs. A-B.) Defendant Hochdorf provides proof that he resides in the State of Israel and states that he does not have an address in the United States. (Hochdorf Decl. ¶¶ 4-9; Exs. C-F[2].) In the Motion, Defendants argue that Defendant Hochdorf should have been served in compliance with the rules of service of the Hague Convention, since he lives outside of the United States. (Mot. pp. 6-7.)

In his declaration, which erroneously begins with “I, Yaron” and ends with Adi Weinberg’s signature, Defendant Weinberg also states that the Summons and Complaint were sent to an old address of Metatron LA 3^rd Group, LLC, and not to an address where Defendant Weinberg resides. (Weinberg Decl. ¶¶ 3-4; Exs. A-B.)

In his Opposition, Plaintiff argues that he “opposes defendants motion to quash the service to the complaint herein on the following ground…1. Defendants Demurrer goes beyonf [sic] the face of the complaint and at most a chanllenge [sic] of factual allegation” and “2. Defendants’ Demmuer [sic] is frivoous [sic] and soly [sic] intended to harass and delay.” (Opposition p. 1.) Plaintiff also attaches a declaration from Tom Kim “Messenger in this action” who states that “[o]n or about 4/28,2022,05:14 p.m. I picked plaintiff’s Summons complaint’s document from the burger kings and put it on front door at their homes at each defendant’s address as attacged [sic] proof of service.” (Kim Decl. ¶ 2.) The Proof of Service attached states that on July 9, 2022, the Opposition was mailed to the Law Offices of Jordan Mattew.

On July 26, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion to allow Defendants an opportunity to file Proof of Service of the Notice of Motion and Motion. On August 5, 2022, Defendants filed Proof of Service of Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint. Defendants also filed a Reply to the Plaintiff’s Opposition arguing that the Opposition “fails to substantively address any of the arguments in the Motion to Quash” and “makes deficient arguments on irrelevant issues as though he is responding to a demurrer.” (Reply p. 2.)

The Court makes the following findings. First, the Court is not presented with any documents or Proof of Service showing that any attempt was made to serve Defendants other than the declaration of Tom King. Mr. King is not a registered process server, he did not properly serve anyone and his declaration is not in proper form. Accordingly, the Court disregards it. The only other document remotely relevant is a copy of an envelope addressed from Plaintiff to Defendant Hochdorf at 340 S. Lemon Ave #3124, Walnut, CA 91789, attached as Exhibit B to Defendants Hochdorf’s and Weinberg’s Declarations. The Court cannot make any conclusions regarding the contents of this envelope.

Second, Plaintiff’s Opposition is completely irrelevant as it makes statements regarding a demurrer, which has not been filed in the instant case.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Yaron Hochdorf and Adi Weinberg’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons GRANTED.

[1] Proof of Service erroneously states that the “Proof of Service” was served on Plaintiff.

[2] The Court cannot review Exhibits C and D because “[e]xhibits in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation, certified under oath by a qualified interpreter.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(g).)