Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV16902, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16902    Hearing Date: September 17, 2024    Dept: 61

MIDWAY RENT A CAR, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs MOKHTAR JABLI, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant Mokhtar Jabli’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED.

Plaintiff to provide notice.

DISCUSSION

A defendant may serve and file a motion to quash service of summons on the grounds of a lack of jurisdiction over him or her. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10 subd. (a)(1).) A plaintiff opposing a motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction “has the initial burden to demonstrate facts establishing a basis for personal jurisdiction.” (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1167.) If satisfied, the burden then shifts to defendant to show that exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Id.)

Mere notice of litigation does not confer personal jurisdiction absent substantial compliance with the statutory requirements for service of summons. (MJS Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 555, 557.) While courts are not required to accept self-serving evidence — such as declarations that one was not served — submitted to support a motion to quash, facial defects of the proof of service will rebut its presumption of proper service. (American Exp. Centurion Bank, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 390.) The burden is on a plaintiff to prove facts showing that service was effective. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)

Defendant Mokhtar Jabli (Defendant) seeks to quash service of the application and order for appearance and examination, purportedly served upon him on April 16, 2024, at an address on Hopen Place in Los Angeles. (Motion at pp. 4–5.) Defendant declares that he was not personally served, and notes that the description of the person served as “BLACK” does not match his description. (Jabli Decl. ¶¶ 3–7.)

The present motion is defective. Although characterized as a motion to quash service of summons and a challenge to this court’s jurisdiction, Defendant has had judgment entered against him, and service of summons in this case was made on August 11, 2023, per the proof of service filed on August 14, 2023. Although applications and orders for appearance and examination (ORAP) must be “personally serve[d],” this requirement affects the creation of a lien on the personal property of the judgment debtor ordinarily created by service of the ORAP, not the court’s fundamental jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 708.110, subd. (d).)

Additionally, Plaintiff in opposition provides evidence that service of the ORAP was accomplished as described in the proof of service. Defendant presents his driver’s license and a picture of himself alongside his declaration. (Jabli Decl. Exhs. C, D.) Plaintiff, however, presents the declaration of the process server, who declares that based upon the pictures provided, and the picture of Defendant that appears on his website (Tellez Decl. Exh. 6), that Defendant was indeed the person he personally served on April 6, 2024. (Tellez Decl. ¶¶ 3–5.) Personal service was accomplished as described.

The motion is therefore DENIED.