Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV26502, Date: 2024-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV26502, Date: 2024-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26502 Hearing Date: May 29, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

Hearing Date: 5/29/24

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV26502 JI'MAYAI DOUGLAS vs JEREMY SAMUEL GRAU

Moving Party: Defendant Jeremy Samuel Grau

Responding Party: Plaintiff

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE IS DENIED.

Legal Standard

A defendant may move, “on or before the last day of his or her time to plead,” to quash the service of summons by alleging a lack of personal jurisdiction, or to dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10, subd. (a).) A motion to quash must be granted if the court finds that either (1) there is no basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant or (2) service on the defendant was improper. (Ziller Elecs. Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1229.)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20, subd. (b).)

“The return of a [registered] process server … establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.” (Evid. Code § 647.) “The filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper.” (Floveyor International, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795.)

Discussion

On August 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present motor accident case. On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service for the Summons and Complaint, indicating that Defendant Jeremy Samuel Grau was served through substituted service. Defendant now moves the court to quash the service, asserting that he lives alone and disputes that substituted service was ever effected.

The proof of service indicates that Plaintiff attempted personal service on Defendant Jeremy Samuel Grau at his residence at 616 South Burnside Avenue, Apt. 303, Los Angeles, CA 90036, on April 4, 2024, April 5, 2024, and April 6, 2024. After unsuccessful attempts at personal service, on April 8, 2024, at 9:32 AM, Plaintiff successfully executed substituted service on a person at the same address. The individual served refused to provide his full name and is referred to as John Doe, a 30-year-old Caucasian male, approximately 170 lbs, 6’2", with brown hair and brown eyes, The following day, April 9, 2024, the process server mailed a copy of the documents to Defendant at his residence. Plaintiff’s proof of service meets the statutory requirements for substituted service, thereby establishing a rebuttable presumption that the service was properly executed.

Defendant filed a declaration stating that he lives at the address listed on the proof of service, 616 South Burnside Avenue, Apt. 303, Los Angeles, CA 90036. The declaration asserts that Defendant resides alone and did not receive a copy of the summons and complaint by mail. However, Defendant's declaration does not rule out the possibility that a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of the residence, such as a family member, was present at the address on April 8, 2024, to accept substituted service. While Defendant claims not to have received the summons and complaint by mail, he does not assert that he was never informed of the service or that no one handed him a copy of the summons and complaint that was left at the residence. Moreover, Defendant does not state that he does not know anyone matching the description of the individual served, nor does he deny that such a person was present at his residence at the time of service. Additionally, Defendant has not provided any evidence beyond his own declaration to challenge the validity of Plaintiff’s service. Due to the absence of crucial details in Defendant’s declaration and his failure to provide additional evidence to counter the process server’s declaration, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to overcome Plaintiff’s rebuttable presumption. Thus, the present motion is DENIED.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.