TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Amir Mostafavi’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is DENIED.

Defendant Amir Mostafavi shall file a responsive pleading within 15 days of entry of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (b).)

Defendant Amir Mostafavi to give notice. 

REASONING

Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1), provides that a defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him. Defendant Amir Mostafavi (“Defendant”) moves to quash service of the summons and complaint upon them on the ground that Plaintiffs Seth Tuckerman and Clara Tuckerman, Trustees of the Tuckerman Trust, dated May 31, 2017 (“Plaintiffs”) failed to serve Defendants in a code-complaint manner. At the outset, the Court notes that Defendant has objected to Plaintiffs’ late filed opposition to the present motion. While the Court acknowledges that Plaintiffs’ opposition is late, the Court is not convinced that a reply to the present motion would have changed the outcome of the present motion; thus, the Court opts to consider the late filed opposition.

The proofs of service filed on the docket on June 18, 2024 shows that Defendant was served by substituted service on November 20, 2023 upon an individual identified as “Rina Y.,” a co-occupant of the premises at 16673 Calle Haleigh in Pacific Palisades by a registered California process server, who provides a declaration of diligence with the proof of service and a declaration of mailing. Rina Y. is described as an Asian female of 50 years of age, weight of 115, and height of 5 feet 2 inches. The declaration of diligence states that the first two attempts were unsuccessful because there was no answer at the door, and no vehicles were visible; in the third attempt, the process server saw a vehicle in the driveway and light on inside the residence, and Rina Y. verified that Defendant receives mail at 16673 Calle Haleigh.

Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b), provides as follows, in the case of serving an individual by substituted service:

If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, . . . 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.

“When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process,” as Defendant does here, “the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413, quotation marks omitted.) However, Evidence Code section 647 provides that where a registered process server provides proof of service, there is a presumption that service is proper.

Defendant provides his own declaration to support the motion, stating that Plaintiffs did not attempt to serve him at another address in Malibu, despite knowledge of the address; 16673 Calle Haleigh is not his residence or place of business; and Rina Y. is not a member of his household or authorized to accept service on his behalf. (Mot., Mostafavi Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Defendant also argues that an application to serve Defendant by publication was denied, but the Court notes that this is irrelevant to the disposition of the present motion.

Notably, Evidence Code section 647 provides that where a registered process server provides proof of service, there is a presumption that service is proper. Notably, Defendant does not state that he is not familiar with Rina Y., and he does not state that he does not receive mail at the identified address. There is no requirement that a party exhaust all addresses where an individual may reside before serving by substituted service; rather, the statute requires only that reasonable diligence to personally serve be exercised, and the Court concludes that was done here. Accordingly, Defendant Amir Mostafavi’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is DENIED. Defendant Amir Mostafavi shall file a responsive pleading within 15 days of entry of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (b).)