TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Ewelina Bussell’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED.

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

Defendant Ewelina Bussell 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 Ewelina Bussell (“Defendant”) moves to quash service of the summons and complaint upon her on the ground that Plaintiff Jeremiah Shartar (“Plaintiff”) failed to serve Defendant in a code-complaint manner.

The proof of service filed on the case docket on March 17, 2023, shows that Defendant was served by personal service at 5937 South La Cienega Boulevard in Los Angeles on March 15, 2023 at 5:18 p.m. The proof of service is signed by a California registered process server, Javier Gonzales, who states that he served Defendant by delivering the documents to her with her identity confirmed by the individual nodding when named, and the process server describes Defendant as appearing to be a white female of 35 to 45 years of age, 5’4” to 5’6” tall, and weighing 140 to 160 pounds. Defendant provides sworn statements that she was not personally served with the summons and complaint, nor was it delivered to her in any other authorized fashion; she was informed by telephone by her attorney that this complaint had been filed and that Plaintiff claimed to have served her; she was not properly served with the lawsuit in any way; and the description provided in Plaintiff’s proof of service does not describe her or the two individuals that she lives with, being her husband and mother. (Mot., Bussell Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.)

First, Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subdivision (b), provides that a motion to quash must designate a date no more than 30 days after filing of the notice as the time for making the motion. The motion was filed on May 8, 2023, and is being heard more than 30 days later, but this was presumably due to court congestion not allowing for a hearing reservation date before the present date, and the statute does not indicate that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a motion to quash extending beyond this 30-day deadline. Thus, the Court exercises its discretion to consider 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. While Defendant states that she was not served, and the description does not match her or the other occupants of her residence, Defendant does not state that this address is not hers or that she was in another location at the time of service. Defendant also fails to give a specific physical description of herself so the Court may compare this description to that stated in the proof of service to determine whether the descriptions do not match. Defendant provides only conclusory statements that she was not personally served, she was not served in any other authorized fashion, and the description does not match her, while failing to provide sufficient facts to allow the Court to make the same conclusions. Given the presumption of proper service by a registered process server, the Court finds that Defendant’s statements that she was not personally served are not credible. Accordingly, Defendant Ewelina Bussell’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED. Defendant Ewelina Bussell shall file a responsive pleading within 15 days of entry of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (b).)

Insofar as Plaintiff moves for monetary sanctions, that request is DENIED, as Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient facts to allow the Court to conclude that this motion was brought primarily for an improper purpose. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (b)(1).)