Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV10649, Date: 2024-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV10649    Hearing Date: October 23, 2024    Dept: 61

JAQUELLINE A MARTINEZ vs ESURANCE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AN ALLSTATE COMPANY

TENTATIVE

Defendants Nicole Bechahed and Sami Bechahed’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

Moving party to give 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.)

Defendants Nicole Bechahed and Sami Bechahed (Defendants) move to quash service of the summons made upon them on the grounds that service was made by an impermissible means. The proofs of service filed against them on August 12, 2024, indicate that they were served by certified mail on August 7, 2024, at addresses in California. However, Defendants argue that service by certified mail with return receipt is valid only on parties outside the state. (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.40 [prescribing method of service on “a person outside this state”].)) Service by mail may otherwise be accomplished (whether within or outside the state) through service of the summons and complaint, along with the notice of acknowledgement of receipt prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure § 415.30.

Defendants’ argument is persuasive. The service addresses listed are for Costa Mesa in California. Although the proofs of service indicate that service was made by certified mail, this method is valid only for out-of-state service. Service by mail within the state must be accompanied by a notice of acknowledgement of receipt, and service is deemed complete upon “the date a written acknowledgment of receipt of summons is executed.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.30, subd. (c).) No such notice of acknowledgment is referenced in the proofs of service. Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the motion.

The motion is GRANTED.