Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV00250, Date: 2024-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00250    Hearing Date: August 12, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Alma Isidoro v. Tae Jung 

Specially Appearing Defendant Tae Jung’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court GRANTS specially appearing Defendant Tae Jung’s motion to quash service of summons. Plaintiff’s service of the summons and complaint on Defendant is hereby QUASHED. 

            Specially appearing Defendant Tae Jung is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND 

This is an auto accident case. On January 24, 2024, plaintiff Alma Isidoro (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Tae Jung (Defendant) and Does 1 through 25, alleging the sole cause of action for negligence. 

On June 12, 2024, Defendant moved to quash service of the summons. The motion is unopposed. 

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 

Defendant moves to quash service of the summons on the grounds that it was defective. Defendant contends the property where substitute service was effected on February 25, 2024, was not Defendant’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address. Defendant indicates that she and her husband had permanently vacated that property by the end of October 2023, and that they had left the United States on November 6, 2023, to reestablish their permanent residence in Asia. Defendant indicates she has not returned to the United States since then, and intends to remain domiciled abroad indefinitely. Thus, Defendant contends the summons is defective and the Court has not acquired jurisdiction over her, and Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that service was properly effected. 

The Court finds Defendant’s motion to be well taken. Defendant has presented evidence showing that she and her husband sold the property where substitute service was effected and that they left the country on November 6, 2023. (Shan Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Exs. 1-2.) It appears to the Court then that the address where substitute service was effected was not Defendant’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).) Plaintiff therefore bears the initial burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that service of process was properly effected as to Defendant. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th at p. 449.) 

Plaintiff did not oppose this motion. Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that service was properly effected as to Defendant. The Court further construes Plaintiff’s lack of opposition as a tacit admission that Defendant’s argument is meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410; C. Opposing the Motion—and Rebutting the Opposition, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 9(I)-C, ¶ 9:105.10; see also Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215 [“Contentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority. [Citation.]”]) 

            Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS specially appearing Defendant Tae Jung’s motion to quash service of summons. Plaintiff’s service of the summons and complaint on Defendant is hereby QUASHED. 

            Specially appearing Defendant Tae Jung is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.