TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Alex Baranov’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

Defendant Alex Baranov 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. Specially Appearing Defendant Alex Baranov (“Defendant”) moves to quash service of the summons and complaint upon him on the ground that Plaintiff Rima Azatyan (“Plaintiff”) failed to serve Defendant in a code-complaint manner.

The proof of service of summons filed on October 10, 2023, indicates that Defendant was served by substituted service on October 5, 2023, at 6:48 p.m. at 7101 Matilija Avenue in Van Nuys, with service upon Ana Knazian, a co-occupant, and the summons and complaint were subsequently mailed to Defendant at that address. The proof of service was completed by a registered process server who provided an affidavit of reasonable diligence, indicating that the process server attempted to serve Defendant personally on five occasions at the same address until serving Defendant by substituted service. Defense counsel provides a declaration that her firm was retained by Defendant’s insurance carrier, her office has not made contact with Defendant in any way. (Mot., Herzog Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.) Her firm retained a private investigator to locate Defendant, a male at 7101 Mtillija Avenue said no person with Defendant’s name lived at the address. (Mot., Herzog Decl. ¶ 6.) A female later called the investigator, stated she owned the residence, she does not know Defendant, no one with that name has lived at the address, there is no one named Ana Knazian living at the address, and she sent back the mailed documents. (Ibid.)

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. 

In opposition to the present motion, Plaintiff’s counsel states that a search report generated 7101 Matilija Avenue as Defendant’s home address. (Opp’n, Quincey Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) There is no further basis to conclude that this address is, in fact, Defendant’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address. The Court has no way of verifying the reliability of the search report provided, and there simply is no basis for the Court to conclude that Defendant has a connection to the address simply because an undescribed search report indicates he is connected to that address. Accordingly, Defendant Alex Baranov’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.