Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV15412, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV15412    Hearing Date: October 3, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     October 3, 2023                                 TRIAL DATE:  Not set

CASE:                                Babak Mobasser v. Joel Bond Deas, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV15412

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:                   Specially Appearing Defendant Edmundo Gerardo Llamas

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            On April 22, 2021, Plaintiff, Babak Mobasser, filed a form complaint in pro per against Defendants, Joel Bond Deas and Edmundo Gerardo Llamas (“Llamas”), for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision.  Plaintiff filed a proof of service purportedly showing Llamas was served with the summons and complaint by substituted service on July 13, 2023.

On September 6, 2023, Llamas filed this motion to quash Plaintiff’s service of the summons and complaint.

The motion is unopposed.[1]

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subd. (a)(1), “[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 serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.”¿ When a defendant moves to quash service of summons, the plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.”  (Coulston v. Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868.)

III.       DISCUSSION

            Llamas argues the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him.  In support, Llamas points out that the proof of service shows Llamas was purportedly served by substituted service at 320 Florida Avenue NE, Apt. 412, Washington, D.C. by leaving the summons and complaint with a female at the premises, Yasmin Noohi.  However, Llamas represents he does not reside at that address nor is Ms. Noohi authorized to accept service on Llamas’s behalf. 

            Llamas demonstrates Plaintiff has not effected proper service of the summons and complaint.  Accordingly, the motion to quash is GRANTED.

IV.       CONCLUSION

            The unopposed motion to quash is granted.

            Moving party to give notice, unless waived. 

Dated:   October 3, 2023                                            ___________________________________

                                                                                    Kerry Bensinger

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.