Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC04517, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC04517    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: 26

Urban Therapies Distribution LLC  v. Treehouse Botanicals Corporation, et al.

Motion to Quash

(CCP § 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING: DENY

            Defendant Treehouse Botanicals Corporation’s Motion to Quash is DENIED.

Background

            On July 18, 2023, Urban Therapies Distribution LLC (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint that alleges that Plaintiff sold goods and merchandise to Treehouse Botanicals Corporation (Treehouse), Jillian Goldsmith (Goldsmith), and Ariel Mehrban (Mehrban). Plaintiff then filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) on December 20, 2023, where Plaintiff alleges five causes of action surrounding the allegations that Treehouse, Goldsmith, and Mehrban all became indebted to Plaintiff in the sum of $9,249.08. (FAC, ¶ 8-10.)

            The motion now before the Court is the Motion to Quash the service of Summons and Amended Complaint filed by entity Defendant Treehouse. Plaintiff opposes the Motion and Treehouse files a reply.

Discussion

Legal Standard

            Pursuant to CCP 418.10(a)(1), a defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court. Without proper service, a court cannot maintain jurisdiction over the defendant and any judgment is void. “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.4^th 556, 568.)

            Because the defendant filing this Motion is a corporation, CCP 416.10 governs. Pursuant to CCP 416.10, when a summons need be served on a corporation, it must be served on a designated agent for service of process, or a president, chief executive officer, vice president, secretary, treasure, or chief financial officer. (CCP 416.10(a)-(b).)

Analysis

            The parties contentions surround whether Treehouse was served properly. Plaintiff argues that service was proper pursuant to CCP § 415.20(b). Additionally, Plaintiff argues that because written responses to discovery were served and verified as of September 29, 2023, Treehouse has made a general appearance, submitting to the Court’s jurisdiction. First, as noted above, CCP 416.10 is the proper legal standard when assessing appropriate service upon a corporation. Second, upon reply, although Treehouse makes no mention of the discovery responses, Treehouse does argue that no general appearance has been made.

            The Court notes that on November 30, 2023, a hearing was held on the Demurrer filed by Treehouse, Goldsmith, and Mehrban. Each Defendant also filed a motion to quash service on August 25, 2023, which was set to be heard concurrently with the Demurrer, however, the motions to quash were not separately reserved. Instead, Treehouse, Goldsmith and Mehrban improperly sought to use the same reservation number for the Demurrer to also hear the motions to quash. The Court chose to not consider the motions to quash, and only rule on the Demurrer on the November 30, 2023 hearing. All three Defendants were instructed to separately reserve and pay the requisite fees for the motions to quash. (See November 20, 2023 Minute Order, pg. 2.)

            Ordinarily, the filing of a Demurrer constitutes a general appearance, and defendant then forfeits any objection to defective service. (See CCP § 410.50. Also see Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Sparks Const., Inc. (2004) 114 Cal.4th 1135, 1145.) Upon reply, Moving Defendants contend that this Court granted them leave to re-file the instant Motions, and if the Court were to rule here that the Demurrer constituted a general appearance, it would render the instant Motions pointless. The Court agrees. Similarly, with regard to Plaintiff’s argument that discovery should constitute a general appearance, the Court notes that the initial motions to quash that were improperly sought to be heard with the demurrer were filed prior to the discovery responses, and the Court instructed all defendants to re-file the motions to quash. Pursuant to CCP 128(8)(a)-(b), the Court will not deny the Motion on the grounds that the discovery responses constitute a general appearance. However, the Motion will be denied on the grounds that service was proper.

a)      By serving individual officers of Treehouse, Plaintiff executed proper service pursuant to CCP 416.10

            Treehouse states that on July 26, 2023 at approximately, 1:15pm, the process server left the cashier a stack of loose papers at the storefront located on 11614 Venice Blvd., Los Angeles, Ca 90066. Treehouse argues that because the cashier is not an agent for service of process that service was improper. This is correct, however, the service upon Goldsmith and Mehrban was proper pursuant to CCP § 415.20, therefore, as Goldsmith and Mehrban are the alleged owners of Treehouse, service was in fact proper pursuant to CCP 416.10.

            CCP § 415.20 which permits service on an individual to be performed “by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business…in the presence of…a person apparently in charge of his or her office…” (CCP § 415.20, emphasis added.) The opposition papers demonstrate that is exactly what the process server did. (Opposition Papers, Exh. A) Case law provides that if an individual, as the corporation’s representative is served, and is authorized to receive service on behalf of the corporation, the corporation has been properly served. (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4^th 1426, 1435.)

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Defendant Treehouse Botanicals Corporation’s Motion to Quash is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.