Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV03068, Date: 2025-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV03068    Hearing Date: January 29, 2025    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  James Rutherford v. Golden888 Investments LLC 

Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons. Defendant is ordered to file a responsive pleading within 15 calendar days of this Order. 

              Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND 

This is an ADA/Unruh case. On September 17, 2024, plaintiff James Rutherford (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Golden888 Investments LLC (Defendant), alleging two causes of action for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. On January 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint alleging the same causes of action, but adding Zhaoyang Pan and Lucy Liu Clark as defendants. 

On November 27, 2024, Defendant moved to quash service of the summons. On January 16, 2025, Plaintiff opposed the motion. On January 22, 2025, Defendant 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 

Defendant moves to quash service of the summons on the grounds that the summons was invalid because Plaintiff had not paid the $1,000.00 high frequency litigant filing fee when it was served, and because Plaintiff failed to pay it within 20 days of receiving the notice of insufficiency from the clerk. Defendant then contends Plaintiff cannot carry his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the service is valid and that the Court has personal jurisdiction. 

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendant does not have standing under Code of Civil Procedure section 411.21 to challenge issues regarding payment of fees, but states that there are specific provisions for adverse parties regarding fees being voided and refunded. Plaintiff contends this state does not give Defendant the right to challenge Plaintiff’s failure to pay filing fees. Plaintiff contends Defendant’s motion cites law regarding the issuance of the summons and the clerk’s obligations, not the validity of the summons. Plaintiff then contends the motion is moot because Plaintiff paid the high frequency litigant fee on November 19, 2024, after receiving the notice from the clerk’s office that was sent on November 4, 2024. Plaintiff further contends it is standard practice for the high frequency litigant fee to be paid later because it cannot be paid when electronically filing a case; rather, the fee gets paid later after the clerk issues a notice, which is what happened here. Plaintiff finally contends that the motion is moot because Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint and has requested issuance of an amended summons to serve on Defendant. 

Analysis 

The Court finds Defendant’s motion unavailing. Code of Civil Procedure section 411.21 does not provide that the summons is automatically void upon failure to pay the full filing fee; rather, it states that the clerk must void the filing if the full amount is not paid within 20 days of the notice of insufficient payment from the clerk. (Code Civ. Proc., § 411.21, subds. (a)-(b).) The burden is therefore on the clerk to void the filing; it does not happen automatically if the payment is not made within the 20-day deadline. (See ibid.) Nothing in the Court’s records indicate that the clerk voided the summons for failure to pay the high frequency litigant fee. Further, Plaintiff timely paid the high frequency litigant filing fee so the motion is moot. 

The Court declines to consider the parties’ remaining arguments. Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons. Defendant is ordered to file a responsive pleading within 15 calendar days of this Order. 

              Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.