Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 22AHVCV01015, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHVCV01015    Hearing Date: May 19, 2023    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

Bruce Wayne Miller, dba GLOWTEX BUILDERS, a sole proprietorship,

 

                                            Plaintiff,

vs.

 

GEORGI STEFANOV KAZACHKI, an individual; STEFAN KAZACHKI, an individual; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

 

                                            Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 22AHCV01015

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

 

Date:   May 19, 2023

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

         

          I.        INTRODUCTION

          This is an action for breach of construction contract, enforcement of mechanic’s lien, and common counts. Glowtex Builders alleged is performed work for Georgi Stefanov Kazachki (Georgi) and Stefan Kazachki (Stefan)[1] on real certain real property. The real property is located at 325 Camino Verde in South Pasadena. Defendant Green Earth Building, LLC, was added as Doe 1.

          Georgi and Stefan were served by substituted service at the Camino Verde property.

They each move to quash service of the summons and complaint. However, as their motions are unsupported by admissible evidence, they cannot be granted.     

 

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

          Code Civ. Proc. §415.20

(a) [omitted – applies only to entity defendants]

(b) If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, as specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.

 

III.     ANALYSIS

          According to the proofs of service, Defendants were each served by substituted service at 325 Camino Verde, the site of the construction at issue in this litigation. The papers were left with a construction worker there, and the box was checked indicating that he is a competent member of the household. This would seem to indicate a belief that Georgi and Stefan reside there. (The process server did not, for example, mark the box indicating that they were served at their place of business.)

          Defendants move to quash service of the summons and complaint on them, presumably on the ground that 325 Camino Verde is not their “dwelling house” or “usual place of abode.” The problem with the motions, however, is that they are not supported by any admissible evidence. The documents attached to each of the motions as a declaration fail to meet the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §2015.5. Without proper evidence establishing that 325 Camino Verde is not the dwelling house or usual place of abode for either of the defendants, the motions fail.

 

IV.     CONCLUSION

          The motions to quash are denied. Defendants are granted 10 days to file a responsive pleading.

          Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

 

 

         

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

 

 


[1] Because defendants share a common surname, their first names are used here to distinguish them. No disrespect is intended.