Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV01216, Date: 2024-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: June 12, 2024

Case Name: Nevarez, et al. v. J.K. Residential Services, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 23STCV25594 

Matter: Motions to Quash Service of Summons (3x)

Moving Party: Defendants 7520 S. Broadway, LLC, Haresh Jogani, and  J.K. Properties,

Inc.

Responding Party: All Plaintiffs

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motions to Quash are denied.

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. 

Defendants 7520 S. Broadway, LLC, Haresh Jogani, and J.K. Properties, Inc. seek to quash service of summons, contending that Plaintiffs failed to serve them properly.  Their agent for service of process, Ritesh Desai, states that he is the only person authorized to accept service of process for the entity Defendants.

The proofs of service at issue indicate substituted service upon “John Doe receptionist Male Hispanic 31-35 years old; 215 lbs.; black hair; brown eyes” at 2016 Riverside Dr. Los Angeles, CA 90039, which Desai states is his address as well as the business address.  

A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground the Court lacks personal jurisdiction.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10(a)(1).)  “Although the defendant is the moving party, the plaintiff must carry the initial burden of demonstrating facts by a preponderance of evidence justifying the exercise of jurisdiction in California.”  (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.) 

Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(a) states that “[i]n lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served as specified in Section 416.10, 416.20, 416.30, 416.40, or 416.50, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address, other than a United States Postal Service post office box, with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. When service is effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at a mailing address, it shall be left with a person at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.”

Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b) states, “If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, as specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.”

“A plaintiff may serve individual defendants through substitute service when they cannot be personally served with reasonable diligence. (§ 415.20, subd. (b); American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara, at p. 390, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 99.) The plaintiff may effect substitute service of a summons and complaint by leaving a copy of the documents at the defendant's ‘usual place of business’ with a person at least 18 years old who is ‘apparently in charge of his or her office [or] place of business,’ and thereafter mailing a copy of the documents to the same place. (§ 415.20, subd. (b).) ‘Two or three attempts to personally serve a defendant at a proper place ordinarily qualifies as reasonable diligence.’ ”  (Rodriguez v. Cho (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 742, 750.)

Here, Plaintiffs have adequately shown that service was rendered at the Defendants’ business address upon a receptionist and then the subject papers were mailed to the same place.  Indeed, “substitute service on entity defendants may be effected by leaving summons with secretaries, receptionists, doorkeepers, or other persons ‘apparently in charge’ of the premises [ ]. They need not be authorized to accept summons on defendant's behalf.”  (Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Guide 2023) Ch. 4-D.)  For Jogani, the place of service was similarly listed as his business address with the Secretary of State, and an adequate declaration of diligence was provided.  Additionally, Defendants ultimately obtained notice of this action.

Because service was proper, the Motions to Quash are denied.  An answer is to be filed within 20 days.

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.