Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV30353, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV30353    Hearing Date: August 4, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 4, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Moving Party: Specially Appearing Defendant Sheikh Khalifa Bin Hamdan Al Nahyan

Responding Party: Plaintiff Ziad Alhassen

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH IS DENIED.

            DEFENDANT to notice.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff Ziad Alhassen sued Defendants Tarek Alhassen, Mohammed Tarif Alhassen and twenty-three business entities, asserting causes of action for declaratory relief, involuntary dissolution and winding up of business entities, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive trust and accounting. On February 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants, asserting causes of action for declaratory relief, involuntary dissolution, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment and accounting. On December 1, 2020, following the demurrer of Defendants Tarek Alhassen, Mohammed Tarif Alhassen, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, asserting thirteen causes of action for declaratory relief, involuntary dissolution, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment and accounting. Plaintiff filed the operative third amended complaint on May 26, 2021.

This action arises out of several family businesses owned by brothers Ziad, Tarek and Mohammed Tarif Alhassen. Plaintiff alleges that Tarek and Mohammed Tarif Alhassen conspired to squeeze him out of a newly-formed business entity.

ANALYSIS

“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: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.”  (CCP § 418.10(a)(1).)  “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.4th 556, 568.)  

Specially Appearing Defendant Sheikh Khalifa Bin Hamdan Al Nahyan moves to quash service of summons.[1] On June 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed the proof of service of summons on Defendant. The proof of service states that Defendant was served at his residence in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates, on May 25, 2022 by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with a security guard who denied access to Defendant and accepted service. The proof of service states that the security guard identified himself as “Man Thapa.” A copy of the summon and complaint subsequently were mailed to Defendant’s residence.

Defendant asserts that service was improper because he does not employ anyone named Man Thapa, his security does not have a record of a service attempt, and Defendant did not receive a copy of the summons and complaint.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to show service is improper. Plaintiff says that Defendant does not deny the Palace is his residence and security guards are competent members of a household who may accept service. (See Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim Group, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393-4 [“The gate guard in this case must be considered a competent member of the household and the person apparently in charge. Appellants authorized the guard to control access to them and their residence. We therefore assume the relationship between appellants and the guard ensures delivery of process.”]

Defendant’s evidence does not defeat the presumption of proper service, nor does it show that Plaintiff’s proof of service and declarations in opposition to this motion are unreliable. Plaintiff attempted service at Defendant’s residence four times, left the summons and complaint with a competent member of the household, and mailed copies thereafter. Defendant’s statement that security informed him there is no record of a service attempt is hearsay, and Defendant does not show whether security traditionally keeps such records. That Defendant did not “receive” the documents does not render service improper.

Defendant’s motion to quash is DENIED.