TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Tali Sigalus’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED.

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

Clerk 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 her. Defendant Tali Sigalus (“Defendant”) moves to quash service of the summons and complaint upon her on the ground that Plaintiff Haleh Shekarchian (“Plaintiff”) failed to serve Defendant in a code-complaint manner.

The proof of service of summons filed on April 3, 2024, indicates that Defendant was served by personal service at 3436 Vinton Avenue, Apartment 5, in Los Angeles on April 1, 2024, at 6:40 p.m. The proof of service is signed by a registered California process server, which creates a rebuttable presumption of proper service pursuant to Evidence Code section 647.

Defendant provides her sworn statement that she was not personally served with the summons and complaint, and on April 1, 2024, she noticed an individual at her doorstep, who left the documents on the ground outside her residence, but the individual did not hand her any documents or communicate anything to her. (Mot., Sigalus Decl., p. 2.) She also states that she does not match the physical description of the individual who was purportedly served. (Ibid.) It follows that the Court is required to make a credibility determination as to whether the process server’s account or Defendant’s account is correct. Notably, the opposition includes a declaration from the process server, who states that he visited Unit #5 after a neighbor directed him to that location as Defendant’s residence, he asked the individual at the unit if she was Tali Sigalus, the individual responded that she was, the process server handed her the papers and told her they were court documents, the individual took the documents, and the process server took photographs of the unit, as is his practice. (Mot., Rideout Decl. ¶¶ 4-7.) Given that Plaintiff enjoys a presumption of proper service with a declaration from a registered California process server, the Court finds that Defendant has not sufficiently rebutted that presumption. Accordingly, Defendant Tali Sigalus’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED. Defendant Tali Sigalus shall file a responsive pleading within 15 days of entry of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (b).)