Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV27539, Date: 2025-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27539    Hearing Date: May 9, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On February 11, 2023, Plaintiff Tracy Davis was allegedly injured in a bus-related incident. On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACTMA”) and other defendants. On March 8, 2024, LACMTA filed a Cross-Complaint naming Jahred Tolbert (albeit, the spelling of Tolbert’s first name was apparently wrong) as a Cross-Defendant. On or around March 19, 2025, LACMTA served Tolbert in Ithaca, New York. Cross-Defendant Tolbert now moves to quash service.

Legal Standard

“A defendant . . . may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes:¿(1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. . . .”¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a).)¿“[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.]”¿(Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.)¿“[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper” but only if it “complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.”¿(Id. at 1441-1442.)¿When a defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, the plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.”¿(Coulston v. Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868.)¿“A court lacks jurisdiction over a party if there has not been proper service of process.”¿(Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.) 

Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10 provides that a summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served. A summons may be served by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to such person or to a person authorized by him to receive service of process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 416.90.)

Discussion

Cross-Defendant Tolbert seeks to quash service on three bases: (1) he was not personally served with an adequate summons; (2) service was not made within 60 days pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.110(b); and (3) LACTMA has not filed proof of service as to Tolbert in this action.  He thus contends the Court has no jurisdiction over him.  These arguments fail. 

Adequate Summons

Code of Civil Procedure § 417.20 requires a proof of service to include evidence satisfactory to the Court establishing actual delivery to the person to be served. Tolbert contends that LACMTA cannot establish proof of service of a proper summons and related documents because it failed to complete Judicial Council Form SUM-110 with identifying information and therefore there is no indication that Tolbert was actually served with the summons and complaint. Tolbert points to the fact that the bottom portion of the summons is incomplete, including the absence of Tolbert’s name and the date of service. (Heins Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. 5.) Tolbert contends that, without substantial compliance with statutory requirements to support proof of service, the summons and complaint must be quashed.

However, on April 29, 2025, LACMTA filed a proof of service showing that Tolbert was served with the summons and complaint on March 18, 2025. To the extent Tolbert challenges the sufficiency of service based solely on the incomplete bottom portion of the summons, Tolbert fails to cite any legal authority establishing that such an omission, standing alone, renders service invalid. In the Court’s view, that blank portion in the face of an actual proof of service does not invalidate service. Code of Civil Procedure § 417.20, which states that “proof of service shall include evidence satisfactory to the court establishing actual delivery to the person to be served, by a signed return receipt or other evidence,” does not address this issue and does not mandate the Court to change its  view that the blank portion of the summons does not impact the validity of service.

Timing of Service

Cross Defendant Tolbert also references California Rules of Court, rule 3.110, arguing that proofs of service must be filed within sixty days after the complaint is filed. However, Cross Defendant fails to provide any authority establishing that a violation of rule 3.110 provides a basis for a motion to quash. In fact, Cross Defendant relies on Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10(a)(1), which authorizes a motion to quash only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person. Tolbert provides no authority to support the contention that serving a defendant after sixty days deprives the Court of jurisdiction.

Proof of Service

LACTMA has not filed a proof of service.  So, Tolbert’s argument that it has not is no longer accurate.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to quash is denied.

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’s 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.