Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV00760, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00760    Hearing Date: November 8, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Bueno v. Cannon, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV00760

MOTION:                  Motion to Quash Service of Process

HEARING DATE:   11/8/2023

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.”].)  

Analysis

Defendants Mark Cannon and Amandeep Dhillon MD specially appear and move to quash service of summons.

              “[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.)

Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service (POS) showing service upon both Defendants on August 30, 2023. The POS indicates that the registered process server left the packet with a co-occupant named “Melissa” at 11348 Sinclair Avenue, Porter Ranch. The POS indicates that this address is the dwelling house or usual place of abode of Defendants. The process server also provided a declaration of diligence and a declaration of mailing. This creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper on both Defendants.

Defendants argue that neither defendant resides at this address. However, Defendants do not provide competent evidence that this is the case. Instead, Defendants provide the declaration of their Counsel, who offers Defendants’ hearsay statements that they do not know anyone who lives at the address and do not reside at that address. Since Defendants do not provide competent evidence of these facts, their motion to quash cannot be granted as they have not rebutted the presumption of service.  Accordingly, the motion to quash is DENIED.