Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV05433, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV05433    Hearing Date: April 17, 2025    Dept: I

The court has had this before.  The problem is one of service.  Plaintiff claims to have sub-served defendant.  However, the security guard upon whom service of process was made denied that defendant lived at the address where service was attempted.  Plaintiff’s response is that the address is the mailing address that it had and the Post Office has no change of address on file.  According to plaintiff, because this is where defendant regularly gets mail, this is the proper service address.  The court disagrees.  Plaintiff has to do better than serve a security guard who claims that the defendant does not live in the complex (and therefore, unless the guard is lying, who will not deliver the summons and complaint to the defendant).  Some additional showing is needed.  For example, some independent evidence that defendant actually does live at the address in question would be good if reliable.  Evidence of plaintiff going into or leaving the complex would do.  Even evidence that the vehicle that plaintiff seeks to possess is regularly garaged on the grounds would likely do.  But right now there is no evidence that plaintiff is serving defendant at the right address and no evidence that the guard is a suitable person upon whom substituted service can be made.  Without service, the court cannot issue the writ.  The court also notes that the Application and the supporting memorandum are not signed.  Therefore, the application is DENIED.