Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV02475, Date: 2025-05-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV02475    Hearing Date: May 20, 2025    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Haier Financial Factoring (Chongqing) Co. v. Meng Yu, et al. 

Defendant Chao Jiang’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Chao Jiang’s motion to quash service of the summons and complaint. The service effected on March 17, 2025 is hereby QUASHED. 

Specially Appearing Defendant Chao Jiang must give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a voidable transfer case. On August 1, 2024, plaintiff Haier Financial Factoring (Chongqing) Co. (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Meng Yu and Chao Jiang (Jiang), alleging one cause of action for violation of Uniform Voidable Transfer Act. 

On April 17, 2025, Jiang moved to quash service of the summons and complaint. On May 7, 2025, Plaintiff opposed the motion. On May 13, 2025, Jiang 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 

Jiang seeks to quash the service of the summons on the grounds that it did not comply with the Hague Convention. Jiang contends Plaintiff did not effectuate service through China’s designated Central Authority or follow any method authorized under the Hague Convention, but instead left documents with a third-party security guard with no certified translation or certificate of service from China’s Ministry of Justice. Jiang also contends Plaintiff was on notice from another case, LASC Case Number 24PSCP00203, that service on Jiang must comply with the Hague Convention. 

In opposition, Plaintiff contends the Hague Convention does not apply because Jiang’s address was unknown despite diligent efforts. Plaintiff contends it had no known current foreign address for Jiang after its service attempts. Plaintiff contends it searched publicly available databases and court records, and served the summons at a Diamond Bar address discovered that way. Plaintiff contends it then obtained a Chinese court-issued search warrant to inquire about Defendant’s address from the Beijing police department but to no avail. Plaintiff contends it attempted formal service via the Hague Convention at the address Jiang had provided but the Chinese Central Authority certified that no such person was at the address provided. Plaintiff contends it properly served Jiang at the address he designated and at the address most likely to give actual notice. Plaintiff contends the service on March 17, 2025 at the Beijing Construction Lanhua Commercial Building in Beijing constituted Jiang’s usual place of business and satisfied the requirements for substituted service under Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b). Plaintiff contends Jiang agreed in his personal guarantee letter that he can be served at designated addresses, which Plaintiff attempted for service. Plaintiff contends it had no other address in China to serve Jiang. 

In reply, Jiang contends Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable diligence in locating Jiang’s current address. Jiang contends the exception to Article 1 of the Hague Convention applies only when the plaintiff has exercised reasonable diligence in locating the foreign defendant. Jiang contends Plaintiff knew the address used at the Beijing Construction Lanhua Commercial Building was no longer valid, as the two affiliated companies at that address ceased all operations by 2019, were declared bankrupt in 2020, and the property was sold via court auction. Jiang contends Plaintiff used an address it knew had no connection to Jiang since at least 2019. Jiang contends that contacting the Beijing police with a search warrant was doomed to fail because Jiang is a U.S. citizen and does not hold a Chinese resident ID, and that Plaintiff offers no explanation why it failed to take any other reasonable steps, such as searching registries in China, searching social media, contacting Jiang’s former counsel or spouse, or hiring a private investigator. 

Analysis 

The Court finds Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof here. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10; Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449.) There is no evidence that Plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to serve Jiang. (Kott v. Superior Ct. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1139 [Article 1 of the Hague Convention construed to mean requirements of Hague Convention do not apply when the defendant’s whereabouts cannot be determined despite reasonable diligence].) The fact that Jiang may have consented to notice under the guarantee letter at the address for the Beijing Construction Lanhua Commercial Building does not necessarily equate to agreement to service of process at that same address. The guarantee letter only mentions written notices, which presumably refers to notices regarding breach or other issues regarding the agreement, and says nothing about consenting to service of process at that address. (Lin Decl., Ex. B, p. 24 of pdf.) Jiang’s moving papers also provided clear evidence that that address is not functional and has not been functional for Jiang since at least 2021. (Jiang Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.) 

Moreover, the certificate of nonservice from the Chinese Central Authority does not state the address at which it attempted to effect service. (Lin Decl., Ex. C, p. 27 of pdf.) The only other evidence of effort to locate Jiang in China was through the Beijing police department. (Lin Decl., ¶ 9.) The Court further agrees with Jiang that Plaintiff could undertake other efforts to locate Jiang. (Reply, 3:14-23.) Given Jiang’s clear indication that he has resided in China continuously since 2018 and still resides there, Plaintiff must comply with the Hague Convention in effecting service against Jiang. (Jiang Decl., ¶ 2; Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 794 [“Failure to comply with the Convention renders the service void, even if the defendant has actual notice of the lawsuit. [Citations]”].) 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Chao Jiang’s motion to quash service of the summons and complaint. The service effected on March 17, 2025 is hereby QUASHED. 

Specially Appearing Defendant Chao Jiang must give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.