Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 22AHCV00438, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 22AHCV00438    Hearing Date: February 27, 2023    Dept: P

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

ANTHONY BOUYER, an individual,

 

                                            Plaintiff,

vs.

 

BOGAD AND BRYAN ENTERPRISES, a California general partnership; and DOES 1 -10, inclusive,

 

                                            Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 22AHCV00438

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION BY NON-PARTY TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

 

Date:   February 27, 2023

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

            I.         INTRODUCTION

            Plaintiff Anthony Bouyer brings this Unruh action against Defendant Bogad and Bryan Enterprises. Defendant is alleged to own the real property at 2450 E. Foothill Boulevard in Pasadena. It is further alleged to operate a business there called The Flowerman. Bouyer, who uses leg braces and/or a wheelchair for mobility, alleges that the parking lot for the business does not have a handicapped space and therefore does not comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act.

            Before the Court is a motion to quash service of the summons and complaint, filed by non-party Scott Bell. According to the proof of service, Defendant Bogard and Bryan Enterprises was personally served with the summons and complaint by service on Bell in his capacity as partner. The motion does not argue that Bogard and Bryan Enterprises was not properly served. Instead, it argues that Bell owns the property at issue. Whether or not that is so is irrelevant. In the absence of any argument or evidence that Bogard and Bryan Enterprises was not properly served with the summons and complaint, the motion  must be denied.

 

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

            Code Civ. Proc. §418.10(a)(1) provides that “a defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion . . . [t]o quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (Bolding added.)

 

III.      ANALYSIS

            The defendant in this action is Bogad and Bryan Enterprises. That party may bring a motion to quash service of the summons and complaint, if there are grounds for challenging jurisdiction. But no authority is cited that would permit a non-party to challenge service on a named defendant. Further, assuming such authority existed and were cited, no evidence is offered showing that there is any defect in service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

IV.      CONCLUSION

            The motion by non-party Scott Bell to quash service of the summons and complaint is denied.  Plaintiff Bouyer is ordered to give notice of ruling.

           

 

           

Dated:                                                                        _______________________________

                                                                                          MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                                 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT