Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV00984, Date: 2024-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00984    Hearing Date: January 3, 2024    Dept: P

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          I.        INTRODUCTION

          This is an action arising from a car accident in August of 2021. Plaintiffs Maria Turcios, Katherine Moran Ramos, Maria Ramos Ramirez and Yajaira Moran Ramos (collectively Plaintiffs) allege that Defendant Edgar Rodriguez Estrada ran a red light and collided head on with Plaintiff’s vehicle. This collision caused Plaintiffs’ vehicle’s end to hit the front of Defendant Alejandro Denton Martinez (Denton)’s vehicle.

          Defendant Denton filed the instant motion to quash service of summons on November 28, 2023. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on December 18, 2023. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

          There are four methods for serving a summons within the State of California:

(1) personal service – Code Civ. Proc. §415.10;

(2) substitute service – Code Civ. Proc. §415.20;

(3) mail service – Code Civ. Proc. §415.30;

(4) service by publication – Code Civ. Proc. §415.50.

          Code Civ. Proc. §418.10(a)(1) provides that a defendant, on or before the last day to plead, may file a motion to quash service of the summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

          Code Civ. Proc. §415.20

(a) [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 Proof of Service filed May 17, 2023, Denton was served by substitute service on May 12, 2023, after two unsuccessful attempts at personal service. (5/17/23 Proof of Service.) The proof of service indicates that a co-occupant was served, namely, Defendant Denton’s cousin, Gilbert Martinez.  A copy of the summons and complaint was subsequently mailed to Denton at the address, 3104 N. Marengo Ave., Altadena. Denton alleges that he was not properly served, because the address where the substitute service took place was not his correct address. In support, Denton provides his own declaration. (Denton Declaration.) He declares that he has not lived at the Marengo Avenue address since November 2021. (Denton Decl. ¶ 3.) He concedes that he previously lived there. (Denton Decl. ¶ 3.) He declares that he was not otherwise served with the summons and complaint. (Denton Decl. ¶ 4.)

          In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Denton held the Marengo address out as his current address, and that it was therefore the correct address to serve him. (Opposition, p. 4: 9.) In support, Plaintiffs provide the declaration of Yasmin Quezada, a secretary at Plaintiff’s counsel’s law firm. (Quezada Declaration.) She declares that she verified the correct location to serve Denton by checking DMV records. (Quezada Decl. ¶ 5, referencing Exh. 3.) The DMV printout, Exh. 3, provides that Denton’s address, per his driver’s license is 3104 N. Marengo. (Id.) This report was obtained July 26, 2023. (Quezada Decl. Exh. 3.) She further declares that she also checked with UPS to see if the Marengo address was correct. (Quezada Decl. ¶ 6, referencing Exh. 4.) UPS indicated that it was the address on file for Denton. (Id.) Attached as Exh. 4 is the August 14, 2023 request, where UPS has indicated that no change of address has been filed for Denton. (Quezada Decl., Exh. 4.)

Plaintiffs also attach the declaration of Delbert Salgado, the process server who served Denton and whose signature appears on the proof of service. Salgado declares that on May 12, he knocked on the door at the Marengo address and an adult man answered. The man told Salgado he was Denton’s cousin and roommate. He told Salgado that he would give the papers to Denton when he returned home. (Salgado Decl. ¶ 3.)

          The Court finds that, for purposes of this motion to quash, Denton held out the 3104 N. Marengo address as his correct address. He did not change his address on his driver’s license or with UPS. His cousin answered the door on May 12, 2023 and indicated that Denton was his co-occupant. The Court finds that Denton was properly served by substitute service. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to quash service of summons.

IV.     CONCLUSION AND ORDER

           Defendant Denton’s motion to quash service of summons and the complaint is DENIED. Denton is ordered to file his response to the Complaint within ten (10) days.

          Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT