Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV94483, Date: 2024-10-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV94483    Hearing Date: October 16, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Heller v. Bosilic, et al.

CASE NO.:                24SMCV94483

MOTION:                  Motion to Quash Service of Summons

HEARING DATE:   10/16/24

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

Defendant Andrea Bosilcic, as Trustee of the B.A.D. Dynasty Trust, moves to quash the service of summons and complaint in this unlawful detainer action.

Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20(b) provides in relevant part:

“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.

Plaintiff submitted a proof of service of process. The proof of service shows that Ryan Sallee, a registered process server, served Defendant via substituted service at the subject property, 351 18th Street Santa Monica, California 90402. The declaration of diligence states three prior attempts to serve at the subject property before resorting to substituted service at the residence.

To rebut this presumptively proper proof of substitute service, Bosilic provides a perfunctory declaration, reporting that she does not “reside in California” and is a “resident of the State of Arizona.” (Bosilic Decl., ¶ 1.) Consistent with the registered process server’s declaration, she claims never to have been personally served with a summons and complaint. (Id. ¶ 2.) She claims to not be evading service, because she could have been reached via personal service at her residence in Arizona. (Id., ¶3.) Bosilic does not know and has never met Chase Osthoff, and he does not reside at the property. (Id. ¶ 4.) She explains that a resident at the property told her about the service. (Id.) This declaration fails to rebut the presumptively valid substitute service. Bosilic does not provide sufficient evidence that the subject property was not her “dwelling, usual abode, usual place of business or her usual mailing address.” At best, Bosilic implies that it is not her usual dwelling or abode but does not make any suggestion about her usual place of business or mailing address. While Bosilic states that Osthoff does not reside at the property, she does not show that he was not “a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address” as required by the statute. Further, she does not explain any facts which would show that the prior attempts to serve at the Property were not reasonably diligent efforts.

Defendant raises an equally tepid objection to personal jurisdiction. Defendant claims that she lives in Arizona, and the court therefore lacks personal jurisdiction over her. Due process permits state courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who have “minimum contacts” with the forum state. “Minimum contacts” means the relationship between the nonresident and the forum state is such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.  (International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.) A court may assume specific jurisdiction over a nonresident, if the nonresident purposefully directed its activities at forum residents, or purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of local law. (Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235.) Specific jurisdiction involves a three-part test: (1) the nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.”¿¿(Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. of Los Angeles County (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1054 [purposeful¿availment¿exists where a defendant performed some type of affirmative conduct which allows or promotes the transaction of business within the forum state].)

The Court has specific jurisdiction over Defendant. This action arises out of Defendant’s direct contacts with California. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is the tenant of the Property. Indeed, this is an unlawful detainer which seeks to evict Defendant and certain unauthorized occupants from the Property for non-payment of rent. The exercise of jurisdiction over Defendant, a tenant to a property in California, would be reasonable in an unlawful detainer action.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.  Defendant to file a responsive pleading within 5 days.