Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV10951, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: March 7, 2023

Case Name: Quintal v. Breakdown Services, Ltd., et al.

Case No.: 21STCV30183 

Matter: Motion for Service Costs

Moving Party: Plaintiff Fabio Quintal

Responding Party: Defendants Breakdown Services, Ltd. and Gary Marsh

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is an employment action.  Plaintiff Fabio Quintal seeks his service costs ($2,468.59) because Defendants Breakdown Services, Ltd. and Gary Marsh unreasonably failed to accept service my mail.

Code Civ. Proc. § 415.30(a) states, “A summons may be served by mail as provided in this section. A copy of the summons and of the complaint shall be mailed (by first-class mail or airmail, postage prepaid) to the person to be served, together with two copies of the notice and acknowledgment provided for in subdivision (b) and a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the sender.”

Code Civ. Proc. § 415.30(d) states, “[i]f the person to whom a copy of the summons and of the complaint are mailed pursuant to this section fails to complete and return the acknowledgement form set forth in subdivision (b) within 20 days from the date of such mailing, the party to whom the summons was mailed shall be liable for reasonable expenses thereafter incurred in serving or attempting to serve the party by another method permitted by this chapter, and, except for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending, upon motion, with or without notice, shall award the party such expenses whether or not he is otherwise entitled to recover his costs in the action.”

Defendants argue that they were not mailed the summons and Complaint directly, rather these documents were inadequately mailed to counsel for Defendants, Blank Rome LLP, who did not, at the time, have authority to accept service of summons.

The Court rejects the contention that counsel could not accept service for Defendants under the circumstances here.  In prelitigation communications relating to this proceeding, Blank Rome LLP stated, “This office represents Breakdown Services Ltd. in connection with the claims you are asserting on behalf Fabio Quintal.”  (Hameed Decl., Exhibit A.)  Further, counsel also represented Defendants in another lawsuit.  (See Hameed Decl., Exhibit B.)  The Court finds that the relationship between counsel and Defendants was sufficient to allow service to be appropriately rendered on counsel.

Defendants argue that the expenses requested are not reasonable because they include (1) costs before 20-days expired after mailing acknowledgements of receipt and (2) costs after Defendants had answered.   However, the expenses are appropriate because they accrued after Defendants rejected service by mail and were apparently negotiated before service was even rendered.  

In sum, the Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.