Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV00722, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22LBCV00722    Hearing Date: January 26, 2023    Dept: S27

1.     Background Facts

Plaintiff, Mike Harsini filed this action against Defendant, Scan Health & Dental Plan, Inc. for bad faith insurance and related claims.  While the caption of the complaint names only Scan Health & Dental Plan, Inc., the body of the complaint makes reference to Delta Dental Care*USA, Delta Dental Care Play, Delta Dental Care, Delta Dental, Delta Dental Care USA, and Scan Health Plan. 

Plaintiff filed his complaint on 11/03/22.  On 11/14/22, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Notice of Entry of Default Judgment if No Responses are received Within 30 days…”  The document indicates that default will be entered against Scan Health and Delta Dental Plan if they do not respond within thirty days. 

2.     Motion to Quash

Scan Health & Dental Plan, Inc. filed a notice of special appearance with a motion to quash, contending it is not a legal entity and therefore cannot be sued.  The motion is accompanied by various judicially noticeable documents establishing that the entity sued does not exist in any legally recognized form.  Plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, details a litany of alleged wrongs that have been done to him, but does not address the issue presented by the moving party: whether the entity he sued exists or not. 

The threshold issue before the Court is whether a motion to quash is proper under the circumstances.  The moving party cites McClatchy v. Swiss Club Tell (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 528, 537, United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D.Pa. 1971), and Kline v. Beauchamp (1938) 29 Cal.App.2d 340, 342 to support its position that service should be quashed.  The first two cases did not involve a motion to quash.  Kline, however, did involve a motion to quash.  The plaintiff sued the defendant using the wrong name, then served a person who was not named in the complaint.  The person the plaintiff served specially appeared and moved to quash the service.  The difference between Kline and this case, however, is that in this case it is not clear what entity is actually moving, or that the entity moving has been served with the summons and complaint.  In Kline, the moving defendant was an individual who was served with the summons and complaint, but he was named incorrectly in the summons and complaint.  In this case, the moving entity is apparently the wrongly named entity itself, and it is not clear that the entity was ever even served, such that there would be something to quash. 

The motion to quash is denied on the ground that the moving party failed to cite any applicable authority.  Indeed, the Court is not clear on how a non-existent entity can move to do anything at all.  The Court does, however, admonish Plaintiff that pursuing a judgment against a non-existent entity will be an act in futility.  A judgment against an entity that does not exist cannot possibly be collected upon.  The Court admonishes Plaintiff that, if he wishes to successfully pursue this action, he must amend his complaint to name an actual legal entity or entities.  The Court also admonishes Plaintiff that his papers filed to date reveal a lack of comprehension of the legal system, and that he should retain a licensed attorney if he wishes to successfully prosecute this action. 

Specially appearing party is ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.