Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 24STLC01901, Date: 2024-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 24STLC01901, Date: 2024-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STLC01901 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Dept: 26

JAG Structural Services, Inc. v. Nasr, et al.

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

(CCP § 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Roya Nasr’s Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint is GRANTED. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IS SET FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff JAG Structural Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action against Defendant Roya Nasr (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed proof of substitute service on May 13, 2024. On June 13, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint. Plaintiff did not file a complete opposition but a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel.

Discussion

Defendant moves to quash service of the Summons and Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff did not serve them in compliance with the statutory requirements. 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.)

Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration concedes that the Motion should be granted and that Defendant will be served at a different address than the one listed in the proof of substitute service filed on May 13, 2024. (Schachter Decl., p. 2:4-5, 13-16.) To date, no other proof of service of the Summons and Complaint has been filed. Therefore, the Motion to Quash Service is granted.

Conclusion

Court clerk to give notice.