Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV23747, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23747    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: 30

ROOHI COHANIM vs CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

TENTATIVE

Specially Appearing Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint is DENIED.  Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Legal Standard

“A defendant . . . 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(a).) “[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.]” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.) “[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper” but only if it “complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.” (Id. at 1441-1442.) When a defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, the plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Coulston v. Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868.) “A court lacks jurisdiction over a party if there has not been proper service of process.” (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.)

Discussion

Specially Appearing Defendant moves to quash service of the summons and first amended complaint on grounds that Defendant was not validly served with process because Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was rejected by this Court. Hence, he argues, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him.

By way of background, on November 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint, substituting David Partovi for Doe 1. On December 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed proof of service indicating that on December 16, 2022, Defendant Partovi was served with the summons and complaint by substituted service at 1219 California Avenue, Apt. A, Santa Monica, CA 90403. On May 10, 2023, Plaintiff again filed an amendment to the complaint, substituting Doe 91 and Doe 76 for Defendant Partovi. On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) which was rejected by the clerk. On February 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service, indicating that on November 7, 2023, Defendant Partovi was served with the FAC and summons by substituted service at 1219 California Avenue, Apt. A, Santa Monica, CA 90403.

However, Defendant has not addressed why the proof of service filed on December 28, 2022, showing that Defendant was served with the summons and original complaint was not sufficient to bring him within the jurisdiction of the Court. The filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper. (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1441-1442.) Defendant has offered no argument as to why this initial service was invalid, or evidence to rebut this presumption of valid service. As such, it appears that Defendant was already within the jurisdiction of the Court when Plaintiff served upon him the invalid FAC.

Accordingly, the motion to quash service of summons and complaint is DENIED.