REASONING

Defendant Reza Safaie (“Defendant”) moves the Court for an order setting aside the default entered against him on the ground that he was not provided notice of the summons and complaint being substitute served upon an individual, and he lacked knowledge of this action until a notice of ruling was mailed to him in November 2023. At the outset, the Court notes that insofar as Plaintiff Law Offices of Rafi Moghadam APC (“Plaintiff”) contends this motion is untimely, “a default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute,” thus failing to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant, “is void.” (Dill v. Bernquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), the Court may “set aside any void judgment or order,” and “a void judgment may be set aside at any time” (Milrot v. Stamper Medical Corp. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 182, 188).

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

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.

The proof of service filed on the case docket on March 15, 2023, indicates that Defendant was served with the summons and complaint by substituted service on March 15, 2023, upon “Wanda Doe,’” identified as the “office manager / receptionist,” at 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, 6th Floor, in Beverly Hills. The documents were also subsequently mailed to Defendant on the same date. The proof of service is signed by a registered California process server, Imad Akiki. The process server also includes a declaration of due diligence, in which he states that he attempted to serve Defendant personally on three occasions.

Defendant argues that “Wanda Doe” is presumably an individual named Wanda Byrd, who is not an employee or coworker of Defendant but is instead employed by the company that owns the building where the office suit is located. (Mot., Safaie Decl. ¶ 11.) Defendant states that he was never provided any paperwork from this individual, and he was unaware of this action until November 10, 2023, when he received the notice of ruling by mail. (Mot., Safaie Decl. ¶¶ 12-13.)

“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.

First, Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b), does not include a requirement that the individual served be affiliated with Defendant or his business; rather, the person served by substituted service need only be “apparently in charge of his or her office [or] place of business.” Second, the statute simply requires “a good-faith attempt at physical service on a responsible person, plus actual notification of the action by mailing the summons and complaint to the appropriate party” (Khourie, Crew & Jaeger v. Sabek, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1013), which occurred here when Plaintiff served “Wanda Doe” after three attempts to serve Defendant with mailing the documents to Defendant at the same address. “It is established that a defendant will not be permitted to defeat service by rendering physical service impossible” (ibid. at p. 1013), and the process server noted that Defendant had refused to come out on the third attempt at personal service. Further, Defendant does not state that he is not affiliated with the address identified in the proof of service, nor does he state that he did not receive the documents that were mailed to him at the same address. Thus, the Court finds that service complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b), as the summons and complaint were left with a personal apparently in charge of Defendant’s office, and the summons and complaint were thereafter mailed to Defendant’s business address. Defendant Reza Safaie’s Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default; and Request for a Penalty Against Plaintiff Law Offices of Rafi Moghadam, APC and Rafi Moghadam, Jointly and Severally, in the Amount of $1,000.00 and for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees in the Amount of $3,705.00 is DENIED.