Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01484, Date: 2023-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01484, Date: 2023-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01484 Hearing Date: January 16, 2024 Dept: C

Ricardo Zaragoza vs Lyft, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 22NWCV01484

Hearing Date: January 16, 2024 @ 10:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Defendant Rogelio Cadungog’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

Defendant to give notice.

Background

This personal injury action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on March 26, 2021, near the intersection of S. Santa Fe Ave. and E. Slauson Ave. in Huntington Park.

Plaintiff alleges that the acts of defendants were negligent and that the acts were the legal (proximate) cause of injuries and damages to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is asserting personal injuries to his body and emotional state.

Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 2, 2022. On September 3, 2023, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Cadungog was personally served at 9336 Van Nuys Boulevard, Unit 41, Panorama City, CA 91402.

Defendant Caundgog filed this Motion to Quash Service of Summons on December 12, 2023, alleging that he did not reside, nor did he receive mail at the Panorama City address on September 3, 2023.

As of January 11, 2024, this motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

“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 serve and file a notice of motion” to “quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her,” or to “dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff purports to have personally served Defendant at 9336 Van Nuys Boulevard, Unit 41, Panorama City, CA 91402.

Defendant’s Counsel has specially appeared to argue that Plaintiff’s service of process was invalid. Defendant presents competent evidence that he does not currently reside or receive mail at the Panorama City residential address at which the process server delivered the summons and complaint.

Further, Defendant has included the Declaration of Guillermo Moreno Aragon (“Aragon”) who lives at the Panorama City address. In his Declaration, Aragon states that on September 3, 2023, someone came to his door, called him Rogelio, informed him that he had been served and dropped the service papers at his doorstep. (Aragon Decl., ¶3). Aragon confirmed that at the time of service on September 3, 2023, no one by the name of Rogelio Cadungog lived at his residence nor received any mail at his address. (Aragon Decl., ¶¶ 4-5). Aragon further confirmed that he did not know Defendant Cadungog and that Defendant Cadungog does not live at 9336 Van Nuys Blvd., Unit 41, Panorama City, CA 91402, nor has he ever lived with Aragon. (Aragon Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.)

Since Plaintiff did not serve Defendant at his “dwelling house,” “usual place of abode,” or “usual mailing address,” and did not exercise reasonable diligence to personally serve him, this service violated the Code of Civil Procedure. Because service was improper, it must be quashed.

Accordingly, Defendant Cadungog’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.