Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC01522, Date: 2024-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC01522    Hearing Date: April 15, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Monday, April 15, 2024

Case Name:                             NISHANTHA PITIGALA, as a sole proprietor v. CITI BANK, N.A., a business entity, form unknown; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive.

Case No.:                                22STLC01522

Motion:                                   Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Moving Party:                         Defendant Citibank, N.A. erroneously sued as Citi Bank, N.A.

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Defendant Citibank, N.A.’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons (Filed on 03/24/2022)  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 February 27, 2024                [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     Filed as of February 28, 2024                         [   ] Late          [   ] None 

BACKGROUND

On March 08, 2022, Plaintiff Nishantha Pitigala (“Plaintiff”) filed a cause of action against Defendant Citibank (“Defendant” or Citibank”) for breach of fiduciary duty.

On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff requested entry of default against Defendant and default was entered by the Clerk on the same day.

On December 07, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Set Aside Default and for Leave to Defend Action. The Court granted Defendant’s motion and vacated the default entered on October 30, 2023.

On January 23, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons. Defendant filed an amended notice of motion on January 30, 2024.

On March 04, 2024, the Court on its own motion continued the hearing on the instant Motion to April 15, 2024.

No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Defendant prays for the Court to issue an order quashing the service of summons on Defendant, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 418.10 and 415.10. Defendant argues that it was not properly served with the summons and complaint as Plaintiff served the summons on CT Corporation System which Defendant asserts is not its agent for service of process nor was it at the time service was rendered on March 09, 2022. Thus, Defendant argues that it did not receive actual notice of the litigation because Plaintiff’s issuance of personal service on CT Corporation was improper.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

            In reply, Defendant points out that Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons.

ANALYSIS

I.          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.) 

“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.) 

II.        Discussion

On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service, showing that on March 09, 2022, Defendant was served by Personal Service. Specifically, the Summons, complaint, and other documents were left with Daisy Montenegro, an authorized person, at 330 North NBrand Blvd. Ste. 700, Glendale, CA, 91203. (03-24-22 Proof of Service.; See also 10-30-23 Proof of Service.) The Proof of Service is signed by a registered California process server under penalty of perjury. (Id.). “Evidence Code section 647 provides that a registered process server’s declaration of service establishes a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence of the facts stated in the declaration.  [Citation.]”  (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199¿Cal.App.4th 383, 390; Evid. Code § 647.)

Defendant submits its affidavit as well as the affidavit of its counsel, in which both explain that Plaintiff served the Summons and Complaint on CT Corporation System as the purported agent for service of process for Citibank. (Kelly Andrew Beall Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 1; Citibank Decl. ¶ 5.) However, Defendant swears that CT Corporation System was not and currently is not Citibank’s agent for service. (Citibank Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant further states that on or about March 31, 2022, CT Corporation System sent a letter to Plaintiff and to the Los Angeles County Superior Court expressly advising that it was not Citibank’s agent for service of process. (Id. ¶ 7; Exh. 1.) Moreover, Defendant avers that its records reflect that it was never served with the Summons and Complaint in this case. (Id. ¶ 8.)

No opposition has been filed by Plaintiff. 

The Court finds that Defendant has overcome the presumption established by the Proof of Service filed on both October 30, 2023, and March 24, 2022. Code of Civil Procedure § 416.10(a) provides that service can be rendered on a corporation’s authorized agent of service. (Code Civ. Proc. § 416.10.) Here, Defendant provides evidence that they had no knowledge of the litigation against them, and that CT Corporation System is not an identified agent of service for Citibank. Therefore, since CT Corporation is not Defendant’s authorized agent of service, service was not proper in this matter under CCP §§ 416.10(a) and 418.10.

III.       Conclusion

            Defendant Citibank, N.A.’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons (filed on 03/24/2022) is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.