Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22STLC06331, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Consolidated Electrical Distributors, LLC v. Kevorkian, et al.

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

Specially Appearing Defendants Abraham Kevorkian and Nancy OdeshoKevorkian’s Motions to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint are GRANTED.

On September 27, 2022, Plaintiff Consolidated Electrical Distributors, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants Abraham Kevorkian (“Defendant Kevorkian”) and Nancy OdeshoKevorkian (“Defendant OdeshoKevorkian”). Plaintiff filed proofs of substitute service on June 10, 2024.

Defendants, appearing specially, filed the instant Motions to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint on August 21, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date.

Defendants move to quash service of the Summons and Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff did not serve them in accordance with any statutory method. The Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, which states: “A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1), emphasis added.)

Where service is challenged, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the facts requisite to an effective service. “When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process ‘the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413; see also Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160.) However, a proof of service containing a declaration from a registered process server invokes a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence of the facts stated in the return. (Cal. Evid. Code, § 647; see American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390.)

The proofs of substitute service are attested to by a registered process server, thereby placing the burden on Defendants to overcome the presumption of truth in the return of service. (Proofs of Service, filed 06/10/24, ¶7.) The proof of service states that Defendants were sub-served by leaving the papers at 728 Colman St, Altadena, California on March 30, 2024 with “ ‘Jane Doe’ (20's/F/Cauc/130/5'6/Black H/Brown E), Possibly Daughter.” (Id. at ¶5.) With their Motions, however, Defendants submit declarations stating that service did not take place as stated because they do not have a daughter matching that description, and in any event, their daughter was not at home that day. (Motion, Kevorkian Decl., ¶7; Motion, OdeshoKevorkian Decl., ¶7.) Furthermore, the papers were simply left on their porch on March 30, 2024 and were destroyed because it rained that day. (Id. at ¶¶2.) Upon retrieving the papers, Defendants came to the Pasadena Courthouse to look at the case file and discovered this action. (Ibid.)

These declarations are sufficient to overcome the presumption of truth in the proof of service and place the burden on Plaintiff to demonstrate that service occurred as stated. However, no opposition has been filed. Therefore, Defendants have demonstrated grounds to quash service of the Summons and Complaint.

Specially Appearing Defendants Abraham Kevorkian and Nancy Odesho Kevorkian’s Motions to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint are GRANTED.