TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Ross Tarkhan’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED.

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

Defendant Ross Tarkhan 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 Ross Tarkhan (“Defendant”) moves to quash service of the summons and complaint upon him on the ground that Plaintiff Wilshire Quinn Income Fund Reit, LLC (“Plaintiff”) failed to serve Defendant in a code-complaint manner.

The proof of service of summons filed on January 29, 2024, indicates that Defendant was served at 1319 Dorothy Drive, Apartment 105, in Glendale on January 21, 2024, at 9:10 a.m. by substituted service upon Rafael “Doe,” and the documents were mailed thereafter. The proof of service is signed by a registered California process server, who includes a declaration of diligence demonstrating nine attempts at personal service. The declaration of diligence indicates that the process server first tried the address at 1316 North Columbus Avenue, Apartment 105, in Glendale, before trying a second address at 1319 Dorothy Drive in Glendale. The various attempts indicate that no one was home or no one answered the door until the eighth attempt, when a female occupant stated the subject was not home, and on the final and ninth attempt, the same person stated she would get the subject, and a man stated he was authorized to accept and identified himself as Rafael.

Defendant argues that the purported service is defective because there is no apartment at 1319 Dorothy Drive, and Defendant’s parents reside at 1319 Dorothy Drive, but Defendant has not resided there since 2020. (Mot., Tarkhan Decl. ¶¶ 5-7.)

Insofar as Defendant argues there is no apartment at 1319 Dorothy Drive, this appears to be a mere typographical error due to the change in address, and the correct address is stated on the declaration of diligence, where the address does not include an apartment number. Second, the proof of service is executed by a registered California process server, which creates a rebuttable presumption of proper service pursuant to Evidence Code section 647. To rebut this presumption, Defendant states only that he does not presently reside at this address, but he does not provide a different address where he resides, he does not state that he did not receive the subject documents after service or by mail, and he fails to state that he has no affiliation with this address such that it was properly considered to be his address where he receives mail. Defendant also does not state that he was not aware of this action. Accordingly, Defendant Ross Tarkhan’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED. Defendant Ross Tarkhan shall file a responsive pleading within 15 days of entry of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (b).)