TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Property Management Associates, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is DENIED.

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

Defendant Property Management Associates, Inc. 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 that defendant. Defendant Property Management Associates, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves to quash service of the summons and Second Amended Complaint upon it on the ground that Plaintiff Tatjana Plampe (“Plaintiff”) failed to serve Defendant in a code-complaint manner.

Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10, subdivisions (a) and (b), provide that “[a] summons may be served on a corporation by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint . . . [t]o the person designated as agent for service of a process” or “[t]o the president, chief executive officer, or other head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or chief financial officer, a general manager, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process.” Code of Civil Procedure section 416.90 also provides that “[a] summons may be served on a person not otherwise specified in this article 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.”

The proof of service filed on September 30, 2024, indicates that Defendant was served by personal service on September 26, 2024 by a registered California process server, but the proof of service does not name the person who was served on behalf of Defendant in paragraph 3b. Defendant argues that the agent for service and Chief Executive Officer for Defendant was not served on that date or any other date, and no other individual is authorized to accept service on behalf of Defendant. (Mot., Spear Decl. ¶¶ 1, 2.)

Whether Defendant was properly served by personal service on September 26, 2024 is of no consequence because Defendant made a general appearance in this action. (In re Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1, 8 [“By generally appearing, a defendant relinquishes all objections based on lack of personal jurisdiction”].) “A general appearance is one in which the defendant participates in the action in a manner which recognizes the court’s jurisdiction,” and “[i]n general, propounding discovery constitutes a general appearance.” (Factor Health Management v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 246, 250.) Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendant propounded discovery on Plaintiff on April 12, 2024, including 52 form interrogatories, 27 special interrogatories, and 18 requests for production of documents, that was not limited to jurisdictional issues. (Opp’n, Mudd Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7, Exs. 2-5.) Defendant argues that the law firm propounding the discovery lacked the requisite authorization to accept service or engage in any discovery activities on Defendant’s behalf. First, Defendant has provided no sworn statement that the law firm was not authorized to propound discovery or that this was communicated to the law firm, and the Court is not prepared to find that a party can disavow itself of its counsel’s conduct should it work to its benefit at a later date.

Put simply, there is no basis to conclude that Defendant did not generally appear when it propounded discovery to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendant Property Management Associates, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is DENIED. Defendant Property Management Associates, Inc. shall file a responsive pleading within 15 days of entry of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (b).)