Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV02217, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02217    Hearing Date: January 24, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Porsandeh v. Pittiemum Properties LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                22SMCV02217

MOTION:                  Motion to Quash Service of Summons

HEARING DATE:   1/24/2023

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.)  The plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.”  (Coulston v. Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868; see also Elkman v. National States Ins. Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1312-13 [“Where a nonresident defendant challenges jurisdiction by way of a motion to quash, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.”].)  

“[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.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 412.30 provides that “[i]n an action against a corporation or an unincorporated association (including a partnership), the copy of the summons that is served shall contain a notice stating in substance: ‘To the person served: You are hereby served in the within action (or special proceeding) on behalf of (here state the name of the corporation or the unincorporated association) as a person upon whom a copy of the summons and of the complaint may be delivered to effect service on said party under the provisions of (here state appropriate provisions of Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10) of the Code of Civil Procedure).’” (CCP, § 412.30.) The provisions of this section are mandatory and service of a summons that does not comply with this section is ineffective. (Tresway Aero, Inc. v. Superior Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 431, 435.)

To effectuate service on a corporation, summons may be delivered to the agent for service of process or to the president, chief executive officer, or other head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or chief financial officer, a general manager, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process. (CCP, § 416.10(a), (b).) To effectuate service on an unincorporated association, the copy of summons and complaint may be delivered to the agent for service of process or the president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, general manager, or a person authorized to receive service of process. (CCP, § 416.40.) Service on a business organization whose form is unknown may be effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours with the person who is apparently in charge of the office and thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail to the person to be served. (CCP, § 415.95.) 

Analysis

              Defendant Kira Patel, in pro per, moves to quash service of summons. Ms. Patel contends that no personal or adequate substituted service has been achieved on her in this matter. However, based upon the record before the Court, there is no service of Ms. Patel to quash. Plaintiff has not apparently served Ms. Patel. Instead, Plaintiff served Defendant Pittiemum Properties LLC via substitute service. Ms. Patel lacks standing to move to quash summons on the LLC defendant. Ms. Patel also is not an attorney, and therefore cannot represent the LLC in pro per.  Since Ms. Patel’s request to quash service as to herself cannot be granted, the motion is DENIED.