Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV01024, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV01024 Hearing Date: May 1, 2025 Dept: 61
BOTACH MANAGEMENT LLC vs AORAN LI, et al.
Tentative
Plaintiff Botach Management LLC’s Motion to Serve Defendants Aoran Li, individually and as the Trustee of the Boqin Huizhong Trust, and Lola Bateman is GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice.
Analysis
I. SERVICE BY PUBLICATION
A summons may be served by publication if upon affidavit it appears to the satisfaction of the court in which the action is pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another manner specified in this article and that either:
(1) A cause of action exists against the party upon whom service is to be made or he or she is a necessary or proper party to the action.
(2) The party to be served has or claims an interest in real or personal property in this state that is subject to the jurisdiction of the court or the relief demanded in the action consists wholly or in part in excluding the party from any interest in the property.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50, subd. (a)(1)–(2).)
A number of honest attempts to learn the defendant's whereabouts through inquiry and investigation generally are sufficient. A plaintiff must show such efforts because it is generally recognized that service by publication rarely results in actual notice. Whether the plaintiff exercised the diligence necessary to justify resort to service by publication depends on the facts of the case. The question is whether the plaintiff took the steps a reasonable person who truly desired to give notice of the action would have taken under the circumstances.
(Rios v. Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 871, 880, internal citations omitted.)
Plaintiff Botach Management LLC (Plaintiff) brings the present motion to serve summons upon Defendants Aoran Li, individually and as the trustee of the Boqin Huizhong Trust, and Lola Bateman (collectively Defendants). Li is alleged to have forged the signature of Plaintiff’s principal on a grant deed for certain commercial property, and Bateman is alleged to have either fraudulently notarized the deed or else to have had her own credential fraudulently used to authenticate the transaction.
Plaintiff’s counsel describes the efforts made to locate and serve Defendants. A process server was recruited to make two attempts to serve Li at the address of the real property in question, but no one was present. (Estrada Decl. ¶¶ 3–5.) There was a Chinese address on the grant deed indicating a location at China Central Place in Beijing, but which did not appear to be a valid address. (Estrada Decl. ¶ 6.) The process server found no further information on Li in two prolonged Google searches, and Plaintiff’s counsel did not locate addresses for either Defendant through a Fidelity Title search. (Leon Decl. ¶ 13; Estrada Decl. ¶ 7.) Although a notary, Bateman is not listed on California’s active notary’s list. (Leon Decl. ¶ 7.) The process server twice attempted to serve Bateman at the address listed on her notary stamp, but she was not present and was told that she was not located at the address. (Estrada Decl. ¶¶ 8–9.) Mail service was attempted at the same address, but the papers were returned as undeliverable. (Estrada Decl. ¶ 10.)
Plaintiff has demonstrated both the existence of causes of action against Defendants and attempts to locate and serve Defendants by all manners reasonably available to them, including inquiry into all addresses available for the Defendants and attempts at personal and mail service at those locations. Plaintiff offers to serve by publication in the Los Angeles Times, a local paper of reasonably wide circulation. (Leon Decl. ¶¶ 14–15.)
The motion is GRANTED.