Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV01163, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01163    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Armon Funding LLC v. Beverly Hills Investors Inc.

CASE NO.:                24SMCV01163

MOTION:                  Motion to Quash Service of Summons

HEARING DATE:   4/11/2024

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.)

“[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.)

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).)

Analysis

Defendant moves to quash service of summons because 1) Plaintiff failed to serve a person specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10; and 2) Plaintiff did not mail the summons to a person specified in section 416.10 following substitute service.

            The proof of service on file states that on March 14, 2024, a registered process server served copies of the summons and complaint on Defendant through their authorized agent for service of process, Angela Kimbrough, via substituted service at Defendant’s place of business during normal business hours on Jane Doe, the person apparently in charge of the office. Thereafter, the process server mailed by first-class, postage prepaid, copies of the documents as follows: “Beverly Hills Investors, Inc. - Angela Kimbrough - Authorized Agent for Service of Process [¶] 441 S. Beverly Drive, Unit 5 Beverly Hills, CA 90212.” This service facially meets the requirements of CCP §416.10 and the mailing requirement for substitute service.

Defendant contends that the service was ineffective because the process server gave the documents to Ms. Bruce, the person apparently in charge of the office. Defendant implies that for effective service, the process server would have to physically hand the documents to Ms. Kimbrough. Defendant cites no authority for this proposition. Unlike the caselaw cited, the packet was addressed to the correct person to be served, Ms. Kimbrough. (See Ramos v. Homeward Residential, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1437-42 [where the proof of service fails to identify any such person, the proof of service is defective].) As noted, service on a corporation may be achieved by substitute service. (CCP § 415.20(a); Khourie, Crew & Jaeger v. Sabek, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1015 [service effected by leaving summons and complaint outside the door and mailing a copy of the summons and complaint].) Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff’s process server left a copy of the summons and complaint at Defendant/Ms. Kimbrough’s place of business during usual office hours, with the person “apparently in charge thereof.” (CCP § 415.20(a).) Defendant does not show that Ms. Bruce was not “apparently” in charge of the office. Ms. Bruce only contends that she was not authorized to receive the service (but is authorized to receive and handle Defendant’s mail). (Bruce Decl., ¶¶ 3, 5.)

In reply, Defendant contends that there were no reasonable efforts to personally serve Ms. Kimbrough or other persons to be served. However, there is no reasonable diligence requirements for service on an entity such as a corporation. (CCP § 415.20(a).)

Finally, Defendant states that as of March 19, 2024, they still have not received the mailed copy. (Bruce Decl., ¶5.) This self-serving declaration, however, is insufficient to rebut the process server’s verified mailing, especially since service was only a few days prior.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.  A responsive pleading is ordered within five days.