Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV02751, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23AHCV02751 Hearing Date: January 26, 2024 Dept: P
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
NORTHEAST DISTRICT
I. INTRODUCTION
This is an unlawful detainer action.
Plaintiff Legacy Realty Advisory Inc. (Legacy) alleges that Defendant Joshua
Michael Mathews (Mathews) agreed to rent the commercial premises at 4430 E.
Live Oak Ave, Arcadia CA 91006 for $8,000 a month, starting in August of 2021.
Legacy then alleges that Defendant Mathews failed to pay rent and a 3-Day
Notice to Quit or Pay Rent was Served in November of 2023. The other defendants
are the other occupants of the property.
Legacy filed a proof of service as to Defendant Mathews on December
7, 2023. On December 26, 2023, Mathews filed this motion to quash service of
summons. Legacy filed an opposition on January 12, 2024.
Per the reasoning below, the Court denies Mathew’s Motion
to Quash Service of Summons.
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
Mathews urges that the proof of service filed December 7,
2023 is improper for two reasons: (1) only two attempts at personal service
were made before substitute service was effected and (2) he lives in a foreign
country so service of the summons was not proper. These arguments are addressed
in turn.
i. Substitute Service
Mathews urges in the notice of motion that service of the
summons on the complaint was improper because only two personal service
attempts were made before substitute service was effected. (Motion p. 1: 27-
p.2: 2.) According to the December 7, 2023 proof service, Mathews was served by
substitute service on an adult at the commercial premises. (12/7/23 Proof of
Service p. 1 ¶ 5.) The proof of service provides that two attempts at personal service
were made by the process server before he effectuated substitute service: one on November 30 and one on December 2.
(12/7/23 Proof of Service p.3.) To the extent that the Court considers the
argument that this is insufficient, Mathews provides no support for his
argument. Indeed, the only argument
presented as to this contention is “And the fact that Defendant may have
received the summons and complaint does not preclude a motion to quash due to
the fact that Plaintiff did not serve the summons and complaint in a
statutorily authorized manner.” (Motion p. 4: 16-19.)
In opposition, Legacy attaches a corrected version of the
Declaration of Due Diligence of its process server. (Opposition Exh. A.) The
complete version indicates that not only was there an attempt made at personal
service on November 30 and December 2, but that there was an interim attempt at
personal service on December 1. (Id.)
As substitute service was effectuated after personal
service was attempted three times, the motion to quash is denied.
ii. Location Served
The December 7, 2023 Proof of Service indicates that 4430 E. Live Oak Ave, Arcadia CA 91006 was
the address where the process server served the summons and complaint. (12/7/23
Proof of Service.) Mathews urges that this is an improper address for service
on him. He urges this is the case as “As provided herein, Defendant is a
citizen of a foreign country and lives outside of the United States. She does
not live and has never lived at the Service Address. Therefore, the purported
service of the summons and complaint was not valid and should be quashed.”
(Motion p. 4: 12-15.) Mathews does not provide any evidentiary support for this
assertion. Additionally, the contention
precludes the fact that persons may be served at their usual place of business,
as well as their place of abode. (See CCP § 415.20(b), see also Opposition p.
6:1-2.) Mathews does not present any evidence that 4430 E. Live Oak Ave, Arcadia CA was not his usual place of business.
Accordingly,
due to the insufficient arguments, the motion to quash service of summons is
DENIED.
IV. CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Specially appearing defendant
Mathews’ motion to quash service of summons is DENIED. Mathews is ordered to
file his response to the complaint within five (5) days.
Plaintiff
is ordered to give notice.
Dated: _______________________________
MARGARET L. OLDENDORF
JUDGE
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT