Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV20836, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20836    Hearing Date: January 29, 2024    Dept: 27

Jordan Walker v. Anza Management Company, et al.

 

Monday, January 29, 2024

 

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER: 21STCV20836

 

[UNOPPOSED]

 

Motion – Defendant Lankershim Apts., Inc.’s Motion to Quash Second Service of Summons and Complaint

TENTATIVE

            Defendant Lankershim Apts., Inc.’s Motion to Quash Second Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED.

 

Background

            This case commenced on June 3, 2021 after Jordan Walker (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Anza Management Company and Academy Pointe Apartments. On April 28, 2023, Plaintiff amended the Complaint to correctly name Academy Point Apartments as Lankershim Apts., Inc. (“Lankershim”). Lankershim now files the motion before the Court, a Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint. No opposition has been filed.       

 

Discussion

 

Legal Standard

            “When a motion to quash is properly brought, the burden of proof is placed upon the plaintiff to establish the facts of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Aquila, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 568.) Pursuant to CCP 418.10(a)(1), a defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court. Without proper service, a court cannot maintain jurisdiction over the defendant and any judgment is void.  

 

            California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 415.10, 415.20, 415.30, and 415.50 describe four methods of service within California: (1) personal delivery of copy of summons and complaint to person to be served; (2) delivery of a copy of summons and complaint to someone else at defendant’s usual residence or place of business; (3) service by mail coupled with acknowledgment of receipt of summons; and (4) service by publication. Additionally, CCP § 416.10 states that service upon a corporation may be accomplished by (a) service to the person designated as agent of service of process or (b) service on the president, chief executive officer, or other head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or chief financial officer, a general manager, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process.

 

Analysis

            Here, Lankershim argues that although a proof of service was filed by Plaintiff on October 2, 2023, the service did not comply with CCP § 416.10. As aforementioned, CCP § 416.10 dictates that service must be either to the person designated as the agent for service or an officer of the corporation. Per the attached proof of service, substituted service was executed, with the documents being left with an individual by the name of Preet Desai. (Motion, Exh. A.) However, Lankershim’s agent for service is Ritesh Desai, Lankershim contends that they have no employee by the name of “Preet Desai”. Moreover, substituted service is not one of the methods articulated in CCP § 416.10. Finally, Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the Motion. The burden to demonstrate this Court has jurisdiction is on Plaintiff, Plaintiff has failed to meet that burden here. Therefore, the Motion is granted.        

 

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Defendant Lankershim Apts., Inc.’s Motion to Quash Second Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED.

 

 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.