Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 21SMCV01514, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21SMCV01514, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01514 Hearing Date: January 30, 2025 Dept: M

CASE NAME: Rainey, et al., v. JTaylor, et al.

CASE NO.: 21SMCV01514

MOTION: Motion to Quash Service of Summons

HEARING DATE: 1/30/2025

Legal Standard

“A defendant . . . may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. . . .” (CCP § 418.10(a).) A court lacks jurisdiction over a party if there has not been proper service of process. (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.) “When a motion to quash is properly brought, the burden of proof is placed upon the plaintiff to establish the facts of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Aquila, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 568.)

“[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.]” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.) “[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper” but only if it “complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.” (Id. at 1441-1442.)

Analysis

Specially Appearing Defendant Jayceon Terrell Taylor moves for an order quashing service of the Summons and Complaint. Defendant asserts that the Summons issued in this case is substantially defective and could not confer jurisdiction upon him because it substantially deviated from the summons issued in this case. Defendant requests that the December 21, 2023, Judgment be set aside as void. (CCP § 473(d).)

Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 415.50, authorizing service by publication, allows the court to acquire jurisdiction over a defendant who cannot be served personally or by substituted service under section 415.20 or 415.30, even after diligent effort. “Personal service remains the method of choice under the statutes and the constitution. [Citations.] When substituted or constructive service is attempted, strict compliance with the letter and spirit of the statutes is required. [Citations.]” (Olvera v. Olvera (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 32, 41 [publication void where the affidavit filed in support of the application for permission to publish was both deficient on its face and materially misleading].)

First, Defendant contends that the summons and publications did not accurately reflect the title of the court. CCP section 412.20(a)(1) provides that a summons shall contain the title of the court in which the action is pending. While mandatory, liberal construction must be followed and minor variations of form are not fatal. (CCP § 412.20(a) [Judicial Council comment, citing Clark v. Palmer (1891) 90 Cal. 504, 506.) “Service of a substantially defective summons does not confer jurisdiction over a party.” (CCP § 412.20 [judicial council notes, emphasis added].) The function of a summons is to notify defendants that a lawsuit is pending against them, that they have a limited period of time within which to file a response, and of the consequences if they fail to do so. (Smalley & Karnow, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial § 4:1.)

The Summons identifies the court exercising jurisdiction as “Santa Monica Courthouse” at “725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401.” Defendant observes that the court is technically the “Superior Court” of the “County of Los Angeles”, not the Santa Monica Courthouse, and that Santa Monica Courthouse is actually located at the street address of “1725” Main St., not “725”. At worst, this is an immaterial variation from the title of the court. The address and name of the courthouse still provides sufficient information to put Defendant on notice that he was being sued at the Superior Court of Los Angeles (specifically the Santa Monica Courthouse). Defendant can claim no prejudice from this variation.

Second, Defendant argues that the summons and publication does not meet section 421.20(a)(2)’s requirement that the names of all the parties be stated on the summons. Indeed, the publication printed in the Los Angeles Daily Journal omitted Defendants JTT Holdings, LLC and F12 & Associates, LLC as defendants to the action. That said, Defendants fails to show how this publication did not substantially comply with the requirements as to himself, rather than the unnamed defendants. Courts have held that even if the service of a summons with an inaccurate name is otherwise properly made, and the person served is aware that he is the person named as a defendant in the erroneous manner, then jurisdiction is still obtained over that individual. (See Sakaguchi v. Sakaguchi (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 852, 857 [defendant's first name, Takeshi, incorrectly spelled “Takechi” in summons and complaint, not a material deviation].) Critically, it is undisputed that the summons included Defendant’s own name, providing him with notice and due process and fulfilling the purpose of service of process. The Court thus obtained jurisdiction over Defendant, even if the publication did not confer jurisdiction as to the unnamed defendants. Defendant also contends that he has been prejudiced by this failure, because he did not know that he was being sued as an alter ego. However, the theories of the suit are not part of the summons. CCP section 415.50 requires publication of the summons only, not of the complaint. (CCP § 415.50(b); Rios v. Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 871, 883.) Summons are not designed to place defendant on notice of the legal theories supporting the action, only notice of the action and the timeframe to respond.

Third, Defendant contends that the publication did not accurately reflect the “name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney” on the summons. Defendant notes that many months after the summons issued, but prior to publication, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney. The publication used Plaintiff’s current counsel’s information, rather than the outdated information on the original summons. Defendant suggests that Plaintiffs had to obtain an amended summons upon retaining new counsel. Defendant cites no authority for this position. Caselaw and the judicial council comment on CCP section 412.10 notes two circumstances which require an amended summons: 1) if a complaint is amended before any service, an amended summons that refers to the amended complaint should be issued and served with a copy of the amended complaint; or 2) if an amendment to the complaint adds a new party as a defendant, then ana mended summons be issued and served upon the new defendant, since no jurisdiction would be obtained by serving him with a copy of the summons that does not name him. (Gillette v. Burbank Comm. Hosp. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 430, 433-434.) Defendant does not cite any authority which would require Plaintiff to serve an amended summons upon retaining new counsel of record. To the contrary, the Gillette court found the summons there to be substantially compliant where the summons named the different attorney for plaintiff. (Id., at 434.) The court would thus find the name of the correct attorney to be substantially compliant with section 412.20 and 412.50.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED in its entirety.