Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV28101, Date: 2024-07-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28101    Hearing Date: July 17, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving and non-opposition papers, the Court rules as follows.  

BACKGROUND 

On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff Nouritza Geukgeuzian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), and Does 1-20 for dangerous condition of public property. 

On November 3, 2022, the County filed an answer. 

On December 14, 2022, and January 23, 2023, the Court dismissed the County without prejudice. 

On June 15, 2023, the Court entered the City’s default.  On February 15, 2024, the Court set aside the default based on the parties’ stipulation. 

On June 20, 2023, the City filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-20 for apportionment of fault, indemnification, and declaratory relief.  On February 13, 2024, the City amended its cross-complaint to include Cross-Defendant 17925 Devonshire Street, Inc. as Doe 1 (“Devonshire”). 

On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Devonshire as Doe 1. 

On March 1, 2024, Devonshire filed a motion to quash service of Plaintiff’s summons and complaint.  The motion was set for hearing on July 17, 2024.  On July 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition. 

On March 21, 2024, Devonshire filed a motion to quash service of the City’s summons and cross-complaint.  The motion was set for hearing on July 17, 2024.  The City has not filed an opposition. 

Trial is currently scheduled for September 24, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Devonshire asks the Court to quash service of Plaintiff’s summons and complaint.  Devonshire also asks the Court to quash service of the City’s summons and cross-complaint. 

Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. 

The City has not filed a response. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10 provides: 

“A summons may be served on a corporation by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint by any of the following methods: 

“(a) To the person designated as agent for service of process as provided by any provision in Section 202, 1502, 2105, or 2107 of the Corporations Code (or Sections 3301 to 3303, inclusive, or Sections 6500 to 6504, inclusive, of the Corporations Code, as in effect on December 31, 1976, with respect to corporations to which they remain applicable). 

“(b) To 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. 

“(c) If the corporation is a bank, to a cashier or assistant cashier or to a person specified in subdivision (a) or (b). 

“(d) If authorized by any provision in Section 1701, 1702, 2110, or 2111 of the Corporations Code (or Sections 3301 to 3303, inclusive, or Sections 6500 to 6504, inclusive, of the Corporations Code, as in effect on December 31, 1976, with respect to corporations to which they remain applicable), as provided by that provision.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 416.10.) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 provides in part: 

“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 motion made under Code of Civil Procedure 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.) 

“ ‘When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process the burden is on the plaintiff to prove … the facts requisite to an effective service.’ “  (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 4:421.5, p. 4-72, quoting Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) 

DISCUSSION 

A.   Motion to quash Plaintiff's service of summons and complaint 

On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service asserting that Plaintiff personally served the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and other documents on Devonshire by serving “Evelyn, Supervisor” at 17925 Devonshire St., Los Angeles, CA 91325 on February 1, 2024. 

Devonshire argues that Plaintiff failed to serve the summons and complaint on its agent for service of process, Ritesh Desai.  In addition, Devonshire asserts that it has not received copies of the summons and complaint.  Devonshire has submitted declarations supporting these contentions. 

Plaintiff has filed a statement of non-opposition to Devonshire’s motion.  

The Court grants the motion and quashes Plaintiff’s February 1, 2024 attempted service of Plaintiff’s summons and complaint on Devonshire. 

B.   Motion to quash City’s service of summons and cross-complaint 

On February 28, 2024, the City filed a proof of service asserting that the City personally served the summons, cross-complaint, and other documents on Devonshire by serving “Evelyn Guliyan (Supervisor)” at 17925 Devonshire Street, Northridge, CA 91325 on February 21, 2024. 

Devonshire argues that Evelyn Guliyan is not authorized to receive service of process on its behalf for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10.  Devonshire has submitted declarations supporting this contention.  The City has not submitted any response or responsive evidence.  Therefore, the City has not carried its burden of proving the facts requisite to an effective service. 

The Court grants Devonshire’s motion and quashes the City’s service of the City’s summons and cross-complaint on Devonshire. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant 17925 Devonshire Street, Inc.’s motion to quash service of Plaintiff Nouritza Geukgeuzian’s summons and complaint on Defendant 17925 Devonshire Street, Inc.  The Court quashes service of the summons and complaint. 

The Court GRANTS Defendant 17925 Devonshire Street, Inc.’s motion to quash service of Defendant and Cross-Complainant City of Los Angeles’s summons and cross-complaint on Defendant 17925 Devonshire Street, Inc.  The Court quashes service of the summons and cross-complaint. 

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.