Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC07877, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC07877     Hearing Date: May 10, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO SERVE DEFENDANT THROUGH SECRETARY OF STATE

MOVING PARTY:     Plaintiff Alejandro Diaz

RESP. PARTY:            None

Motion for Order Authorizing Service on Hecht Family Limited Partnership through Secretary of State

(CORP. CODE § 17701.16(c)) 

TENTATIVE RULING: 

Plaintiff Alejandro Diaz’s Motion for Order Authorizing Service on Hecht Family Limited Partnership Through Secretary of State is GRANTED.

SERVICE:   

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                   OK 

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

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

OPPOSITION:           None filed as of April 24, 2023                  [   ] Late            [X] None 

REPLY:                        None filed as of April 24, 2023                  [   ] Late            [X] None 

ANALYSIS: 

                I.    Background 

On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff Alejandro Diaz (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Ayleen Davoodi and Oceanic LA LP, alleging a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. 

On January 25, 2023, the Court entered defaults as to Defendants Davoodi and Oceanic LA LP. 

On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Oceanic LA LP and filed an amendment to the Complaint, substituting Hecht Family Limited Partnership for Doe 6.   On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion Authorizing Service Upon Hecht Family Limited Partnership Through Secretary of State (the “Motion”).   

No opposition has been filed.

              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.)

Corporations Code Section 17701.16(c) provides as follows:

If an agent for service of process has resigned and has not been replaced or if the designated agent cannot with reasonable diligence be found at the address designated for personal delivery of the process, and it is shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court that process against a limited liability company or foreign limited liability company cannot be served with reasonable diligence upon the designated agent by hand in the manner provided in Section 415.10, subdivision (a) of Section 415.20, or subdivision (a) of Section 415.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may make an order that the service shall be made upon a domestic limited liability company or upon a registered foreign limited liability company by delivering by hand to the Secretary of State, or to any person employed in the Secretary of State's office in the capacity of assistant or deputy, one copy of the process for each defendant to be served, together with a copy of the order authorizing the service. Service in this manner shall be deemed complete on the 10th day after delivery of the process to the Secretary of State.

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order directing service of process be made by delivery to the Secretary of State.  The reason is that Defendant’s designated agent for service of process is deceased.  (Mot. p. 3; Mehrban Decl. ¶¶ 3-5). 

The Court finds that service upon Defendant Hecht Family Limited Partnership may be effected by delivering by hand to the Secretary of State, or to any person employed in the Secretary of State’s office in the capacity of assistant or deputy, one copy of the process for Defendant Hecht Family Limited Partnership to be served, together with a copy of an Order signed by this Court. 

           IV.Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, 

Plaintiff’s Motion Authorizing Service Upon Hecht Family Limited Partnership Through Secretary of State is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to submit an Order Directing Service via Secretary of State for the Court’s signature. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.