Judge: Mary H. Strobel, Case: 23STCP00041, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP00041    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: 82

            Petitioner Earnest A. Davis (“Petitioner”) moves for an order compelling “the State Department of Child Support Services” to release state hearing records and transcripts. 

Procedural History

            On January 6, 2023, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate pursuant to CCP section 1094.5.  The caption of the petition names as respondent the Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department.  The body of the petition also refers, at times, to “the State of California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS)” as the respondent. 

            On January 17, 2023, Petitioner filed this motion to compel.  Petitioner also filed a proof of service of summons and a proof of service of the motion to compel.  No opposition has been received.

Analysis

            The motion seeks relief against the State Department of Child Support Services (“DCSS”). 

The January 17, 2023, proof of service of summons states that Petitioner served the summons and complaint on the “Office of Legal Services” at the following address: “Calif Department of Child Support Svs, Off of Leqal Services, State Hearings, PO Box 419087, Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-9087.”  The proof of service states that service was completed by mail and acknowledgement of receipt of service. 

There are two reasons the court cannot rule on the motion to compel.  DCSS is not named a party in the caption of the petition.  Instead, Petitioner has named as Respondent  “Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department,” a county, rather than state agency.  Petitioner may amend the petition if he intends to proceed against DCSS as the Respondent. 

Secondly, even if DCSS had been named in the caption, it does not appear that  service is complete on that agency   While a Respondent may be served with a petition by mail with acknowledgment of receipt under CCP §415.30, service is not complete until the signed acknowledgement of receipt is returned to the Petitioner.  (CCP §415.30(c).)  After Petitioner receives a signed acknowledgement of receipt, Petitioner then needs to file a proof of service which includes the written acknowledgement (CCP §417.10(a).)  The proof of service filed by Petitioner does not include a copy of a signed acknowledgement of receipt. 

DCSS has not appeared in this action.  Because there is inadequate proof of service of the summons and petition, the court cannot rule on the motion as to DCSS.  (See Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou SinoType Technology Co., Ltd. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 125, 139 [“service of process asserts jurisdiction over the person”].) 

Conclusion

            The motion is denied without prejudice.  Petitioner may address at the hearing whether he intends to amend the petition to name DCSS as the Respondent.