TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Santa Monica Community College District’s Motion to Quash Service of Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED.

Defendant Santa Monica Community College District 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 it. Defendant Santa Monica Community College District (“Defendant”) moves to quash service of the summons and complaint upon him on the ground that Plaintiff Mary M. Eshaghian (“Plaintiff”) failed to serve Defendant in a code-complaint manner.

The proof of service filed on November 16, 2023, states that Santa Monica College was served at 1900 Pico Boulevard in Santa Monica by personal service on November 9, 2023, by Milton Gaines, who is not a registered California process server. The proof of service does not state who was served.

Government Code section 915, subdivision (a), states that a claim must be presented to a local public entity like Defendant by “(1) [d]elivering it to the clerk, secretary, or auditor thereof”; “(2) [m]ailing it to the clerk, secretary, auditor, or to the governing body at its principal office”; or “(3) [i]f expressly authorized by an ordinance or resolution of the public entity, submitting it electronically to the public entity in the manner specified in the ordinance or resolution.” There is no indication in the proof of service that any such individual was served on behalf of Defendant, as Plaintiff states only that Defendant was served without naming an individual.

While there is no proof of service filed to this effect, the parties appear to agree that Plaintiff left a brown envelope with a security guard at a security booth on the SMC campus. It is not clear why this would comply with Government Code section 915. As to other methods of service upon a corporate entity like Defendant, Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10, subdivisions (a) and (b), state 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.” As to substituted service upon a corporation, Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (a), provides as follows:

In lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served as specified in [Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10, et seq.], a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address, other than a United States Postal Service post office box, with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and 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. When service is effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at a mailing address, it shall be left with a person at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.

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.” There is no indication that an individual at the security guard booth was authorized to receive service, and Defendant notes that Defendant’s Board Policy 3810 provides that the designated place for service is Recording Secretary to the Board of Trustees, 2714 Pico Boulevard, Suite 320, Santa

Monica, California 90405, and the mailing address for the Recording Secretary is 1900 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, California 90405, but Plaintiff did not serve anyone at either address.

Insofar as Plaintiff contends that the motion is untimely, Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1), makes it such that the Court “may for good cause allow” a motion to be heard beyond that date, and the Court finds it proper to do so here considering it is necessary to serve a party properly to establish personal jurisdiction over the party. The Court also assumes the first available hearing date for this motion was April 16, 2024, when made. Finally, the Court does not assume that defense counsel was authorized to receive the summons and complaint, and Plaintiff’s conclusory statement that the office of Defendant’s counsel is authorized to receive lawsuit complaints does not make it so and does not make service sufficient. Accordingly, Defendant Santa Monica Community College District’s Motion to Quash Service of Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff files two additional motions, all contained within the document titled Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Enter the Previously Timely Filed Default Against the Defendant and Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Case Designation as Civil Rights. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enter the Previously Timely Filed Default Against Defendant is DENIED as moot given the Court ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Quash.  

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED without prejudice as Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s previous order of January 29, 2024 in which the Court indicated Plaintiff has leave to reclassify and Plaintiff must file an amended complaint prior to June 20, 2024.