Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 23PSCV03381, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV03381, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03381 Hearing Date: February 4, 2025 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Yili Su v. XiaoYong Cai, et al.

1. Defendant XiaoKai Cai’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint; and

2. Defendant KangKang Guo’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court GRANTS Defendants XiaoKai Cai and KangKang Guo’s motions to quash service of summons and complaint. The Court hereby QUASHES the summons and complaint served on Defendants XiaoKai Cai and KangKang Guo on October 14, 2024.

Moving Parties are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is an elder abuse case. On November 1, 2023, plaintiff Yili Su (Plaintiff) filed a complaint. On August 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint in this action against defendants XiaoYong Cai, XiaoJing Cai, XiaoKai Cai, KangKang Guo, Lei Jin (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 100, alleging causes of action for financial elder abuse, fraud – intentional misrepresentation, fraud – concealment, fraud – false promise, conversion, violation of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, common law fraudulent transfer, civil conspiracy, and constructive trust.

On November 19, 2024, Defendants XiaoKai Cai and KangKang Guo (collectively, Moving Parties) moved to quash service of the summons and complaint. On January 17, 2025, Plaintiff opposed the motion. On January 23, 2025, Moving Parties replied.

LEGAL STANDARD

A defendant may move to quash service on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction by filing a noticed motion to quash the service of summons at any time before the expiration of its time to plead. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) When a defendant argues that service of summons did not bring him or her within the trial court’s jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is, the facts requisite to an effective service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10; Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449 [upon a defendant’s motion to quash, “the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction”].) Once the plaintiff establishes facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state, “it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

Summary of Arguments

Moving Parties move to quash the summons and complaint on the grounds that they resided in China at that time and did not reside at the address in Azusa where service was effected. Moving Parties contend that they were not properly served and therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction over them. Moving Parties contend Plaintiff failed to properly serve them and that Plaintiff has not followed the requirements of the Hague Convention in serving them.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the motions to quash were untimely because Moving Parties were served on August 13, 2024, but filed their motions on November 19, 2024. With respect to Defendant XiaoKai Cai, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Cai has no evidence that service was defective, and that the declaration Defendant Cai filed provides no evidence to verify his claim that he has at no time lived at the property in Azua, such as proof of residency or a document stating his permanent address. With respect to Defendant KangKang Guo, Plaintiff contends he knows based on firsthand knowledge that Defendant Guo resided at the property at the Azusa address and observed that it was his usual place of abode. Plaintiff also contends Defendant Guo represented to him that he attended the local high school in Azusa.

In reply, Moving Parties contend that Plaintiff has the date of service wrong, and that it was served on October 11, 2024. Moving Parties contend that their declarations are sufficient to demonstrate that they resided in China and not in Azusa at the time of service. Moving Parties also note that both proofs of service fail to indicate the address where the parties were served, but only mention the address where service was attempted and the summons was mailed later on in those documents.

Analysis

The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that service was proper. First, substitute service of the summons and complaint was completed on the tenth day after October 14, 2024, when the process server mailed the summons and complaint. (Proofs of Service (10/22/24); Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b) [substitute service complete tenth day after mailing].) Moving Parties therefore had 40 days from October 14, 2024 to move to quash. (Ibid.) Moving Parties filed their motions on November 19, 2024, which was within the 40-day limit, and the motions were therefore timely.

Second, Plaintiff provides no evidence to show that service on Defendant Cai was proper, but instead attempts to discredit Defendant Cai’s declaration, which the Court finds unavailing. The Court finds Moving Parties’ declarations sufficiently show that Moving Parties did not reside at the address in Azusa when service was made in this matter, as the declarations state in clear terms under penalty of perjury that Moving Parties resided in China at that time and even provided their current address in China. (See XiaoKai Cai Decl., ¶¶ 4-9; KangKang Guo Decl., ¶¶ 4-9.)

Third, the Court further finds Plaintiff’s declaration with respect to Defendant Guo unavailing, as Plaintiff provides no information regarding how he knows firsthand that Defendant Guo resided at the property in Azusa, or when he resided at the property in Azusa, but instead makes a conclusory assertion that he has firsthand knowledge and observed it was Defendant Guo’s residence. (Su Decl., ¶ II.1.) Plaintiff also makes the conclusory assertion that Defendant Guo represented to Plaintiff that he attended the local high school in Azusa. (Su Decl., ¶¶ II.1-II.2.) Plaintiff’s declaration does not specify when he observed these things or when or how Defendant Guo represented to Plaintiff that he attended the local high school in Azusa. (Su Decl., ¶¶ II.1-II.2.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that service was proper, and therefore GRANTS the motions.

CONCLUSION

Moving Parties are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.