Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 18STCV00258, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV00258    Hearing Date: December 20, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 10, 2018, plaintiff Merced Maldonado filed this action against defendants Barrett Wissman (“Barrett”) and Nina Wissman (“Nina”) aka Nina Kotova (erroneously sued as “Nina Kokob”) (collectively, “Defendants”).  On September 4, 2019, August 17, 2020, December 6, 2021, and August 15, 2023, the Court granted four other motions to quash service of summons filed by Defendants.  Now, the Court addresses their fifth motion to quash service of summons. 

On August 29, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application for Publication as to both Defendants.

On September 6, 2023, Judge Thomas Griego signed the Order for publication as it relates to Defendant Nina Wisman. On the same day, Judge Mark E. Windham signed the Order for publication relating to Defendant Barrett Wissman.

On September 18, 2023, September 25, 2023, October 02, 2023, and October 09, 2023, a copy of the summons was published in the Los Angeles Times.

On October 16, 2023, Defendants, specially appearing, filed this motion to quash service of summons. Plaintiff filed an opposition.

On December 6, 2023, the Court provided a tentative decision denying the motion to quash but at the end of the hearing, the Court continued the matter on the issue raised by Defendants at the hearing regarding the validity of publication for purposes of service in the wrong name. Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief on December 15, 2023.

          In her supplemental brief, Plaintiff contends that the instant motion to quash fails to cite to any statutes, code sections, case law, or other authority supporting Defendants’ argument that misspelling Defendant Nina Kotova as Nina Kokob is enough to quash the summons and complaint. In support of her claim that the misspelling of Kotova’s name does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction, Plaintiff relies on Sakaguchi v. Sakaguchi, 173 Cal.App.4th 852, 857 (2009). There, a defendant’s name was misspelled on the summons and complaint as “Tagechi” when the proper spelling was “Takeshi”. (Id. at 856.) In denying the defendant’s motion to set aside default judgment based on the misspelling, the trial court found that Takeshi had actual notice of the proceedings and service of process was proper and a “slight error in the spelling of Takeshi’s name does not entitle him to have the judgment set aside.” (Ibid.) The Court reasoned that Takeshi failed to provide any authority to show the misspelling of his name deprived him of actual notice. (Ibid.) Here, like in Sakaguchi, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Kotova has failed to submit evidence showing that she did not receive actual notice of the proceedings, nor did she put forth authority to show that this type of misspelling is sufficient to justify granting a motion to quash service of summons.

          The Court is inclined to adopt its December 6 tentative and find against Defendant Kotova in relation to the spelling error argument based on: (1) Defendant’s failure to raise this argument in her initial motion and (2) the Sakaguchi case in which a slight spelling error was deemed not to be a basis to invalidate service.  However, before adopting these positions, the Court will hear from Defendant Kotova if she would like to be heard.

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.

Dated this 20th day of December 2023