Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV26036, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26036    Hearing Date: February 2, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff Eduardo D. Sandoval (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants PJ Equipment Rental (“PJ Equipment”) and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability. 

On June 20, 2023, PJ Equipment filed an answer. 

On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Lowers Welding & Fabrication, Inc. (“Lowers Welding”) as Doe 1.  

On January 2, 2024, Lowers Welding, specially appearing, filed a motion to quash service on Doe defendant and to strike Doe amendment be heard on February 2, 2024.  On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition.  (The Court exercises its discretion to consider the late-filed opposition.)  On January 26, 2024, Lowers Welding filed a reply.  On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a response to Lowers Welding’s reply. 

On January 22, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Lowers Properties, LLC (“Lowers Properties”) as Doe 2. 

Trial is currently scheduled for June 7, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Lowers Welding asks the Court to quash service of process and strike the Doe amendment from the complaint. 

Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motion. 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

          The Court grants Lowers Welding’s request for judicial notice of documents in the Court’s file. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

“A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: 

“(1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10. subd. (a)(1).) 

A defendant may file a motion to quash service of summons on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a).) A motion made under section 418.10 does not constitute an appearance unless a court denies the motion.  (See L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) (Cal. Practice Guide) ¶ 3:376, p. 3-116 [“If the motion is denied, defendant is deemed to have made a general appearance – waiving any jurisdictional objection – upon entry of the order denying the motion” (emphasis omitted)].) 

“ ‘Although a proper basis for personal jurisdiction exists and notice is given in a manner which satisfied the constitutional requirements of due process, service of summons is not effective and the court does not acquire jurisdiction of the party unless the statutory requirements for service of summons are met.’ ” (Engebretson & Co. v. Harrison (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 436, 443 (Engebretson), quoting Schering Corp. v. Superior Court (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 737, 741.)  

DISCUSSION 

“Designating a defendant by a fictitious name is proper only if plaintiff is genuinely ignorant of the defendant’s true name or the facts rendering defendant liable when the complaint was filed.”  (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 6:80, p. 6-26.)  “ ‘The test is whether, at the time the complaint was filed, the plaintiff was ignorant of the facts giving [her] a cause of action against the person.  The focus is on the facts that the plaintiff knew, not on whether the plaintiff subjectively knew she had a cause of action based on those facts,’ and there is no duty to exercise reasonable diligence to obtain those facts.”  (Id. at pp. 6-26 to 6-27, quoting Hahn v. New York Air Brake LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 895, 899-900, internal quotes and citations omitted, brackets in original, emphasis omitted.) 

“Because plaintiffs have up to 3 years in which to serve summons [citations], naming Doe defendants effectively enlarges the statute of limitations period as to unknown defendants for the 3-year period.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 6:80.1, p. 6-27.) 

Lowers Welding asserts that Plaintiff did not properly serve it as a Doe defendant, and Plaintiff’s claims against Lowers Welding are time-barred, because Plaintiff was not genuinely ignorant of Lowers Welding’s identity when Plaintiff filed his complaint.  According to Lowers Welding, Plaintiff must have known that Lowers Welding owned or controlled the premises where he was injured because the company’s name is written on the walls of the premises. 

Plaintiff responds that after the accident, no one told him that Lowers Welding controlled the premises or the steel beams located on the premises, one of which struck and injured Plaintiff.  As noted above, Plaintiff had no duty to ascertain these facts. 

Lowers Welding has not shown that Plaintiff knew of facts giving him a cause of action against Lowers Welding when he filed his complaint.  The Court denies the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Defendant Lowers Welding & Fabrication, Inc.’s motion to quash service of summons on Doe defendant 1 and to strike Doe amendment. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.