Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 24PDUD00087, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PDUD00087    Hearing Date: March 7, 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 case. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Aleyamma John failed to pay rent of $97.68 for her apartment located at 322 N. Atlantic Blvd Unit D, Alhambra CA 91801. This represents unpaid rent for the month of December 2023. Plaintiff alleges that a three day notice to quit or pay rent was served on Defendant at the apartment and that this notice expired on December 22, 2023. Defendant Aleyamma John is in pro per.

          This complaint was filed on January 10, 2024. On February 9, 2024, Defendant filed her motion to quash service of summons. Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 16, 2024. Defendant filed a reply February 26, 2024. The hearing was continued from February 20, 2024 to its current date of March 7, 2024, in order to accommodate the move from Dept. R to Dept. P due to non-stipulation to the commissioner.

          After considering all papers, the Court denies Defendant’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. 

          CCP Sections 1162 and 415.45 provides for service by posting in unlawful detainer case if personal service is not possible. (CCP §§ 1162, 415.45.)

III.     ANALYSIS

          As to the argument about untimeliness made in Plaintiff’s opposition pursuant to CCP Section 1167.4, the Court notes the argument. (CCP §§ 1167.4, 1013(a).) Notwithstanding this, the Court offers the below analysis to the parties.

          According to the Proof of Service filed February 13, 2024, Defendant Aleyamma John was served by posting on January 24, 2024 at 10:39 am, after four unsuccessful attempts at personal service. (2/13/24 Proof of Service.) A copy of the summons and complaint was subsequently mailed by certified mail to Defendant John at the address. Defendant John urges that the service by posting was not appropriate as (1) only one attempt at personal service was made prior to service by posting; and (2) statements within the declaration of non-service are allegedly false.

Defendant urges that service by posting was not appropriate here, as “there is no evidence of any attempts for service on January 12, 14, or the 15^th, but only on January 16^th as evidenced by the video/the cameras at Defendant’s door.” (Motion p. 3: 2-5.) Further Defendant urges that the statement of non-service provided by the process server contains untrue statements, as “Ms. Alva [the process server] declares that on January 15, 2024, when she attempted service, that she heard the TV on, this is also blatantly false since Defendant’s apartment was unoccupied…” (Motion p. 3: 4-7.) In support, Defendant attaches her own declaration, detailing the same. (John Decl.) To the extent that the Court considers this argument, the Court concludes that Defendant being out of town when the process server attempted personal service does not negate the attempt at personal service. To the extent that the Court considers the argument that the statement of non-service is false, the Court notes that this argument is purportedly based on camera footage not before the Court and the Court cannot conclude on that basis whether the declaration is false. Defendant also attaches a lengthy history of her having issues with other tenants living in the complex, but this is not relevant to the current motion.

          In opposition, Plaintiff urges that the service effectuated on Defendant was proper, as his process server attempted to serve the Defendant four times by personal service prior to service by posting, as ordered by the Court’s January 22, 2024 order granting the application for order to post the complaint and summons. Plaintiff attaches the application and order to post, in support. (Block Decl. ¶ 4, referencing Exh. 1. ) The declaration of non-service included as part of the application provides that the process server attempted personal service four times, January 12, January 14, January 15, and January 16. Plaintiff also attaches the proof of service filed February 13, 2024, indicating that Defendant was served by posting on January 24, 2024. (Block Decl. Exh. 2.)

          Plaintiff also attaches the declaration of Lisa Alva, the registered process server who served Defendant and whose signature appears on the proof of service. Alva declares that on January 12, 14, 15 and 16,  she knocked on the door at the Atlantic Blvd. address and did not receive an answer. (Alva Decl. ¶ 3.) She declares that after those four attempts at personal service, she served Defendant by posting on January 24, 2024, and her associate, Shaunt Demirchyan, mailed a copy of the summons and complaint by certified mail to the address. (Alva Decl. ¶ 4.)

          The Court declines to issue sanctions to either party in connection with making or responding to this motion.

          The Court declines to find service by posting was inappropriate in this case.  Defendant’s arguments depend on camera footage not before the court. In contrast, there is a signed declaration of non-service by process server Lisa Alva and a declaration in support of the opposition signed by the same process server to the contrary.  

IV.     CONCLUSION AND ORDER

           Specially appearing Defendant John’s motion to quash service of summons is DENIED. John is ordered to file her response to the Complaint within five (5) days of notice of this order.

Counsel for Plaintiff, Dennis P. Block, is ordered to provide notice.

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT