Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV31158, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV31158    Hearing Date: October 3, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 3, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Serve Delia Rosalba Simental Crespo and Coco Chavita by Alternative Means

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Benthos Bioscience Corporation of America, Danny Qiu, Key Inspiration Limited and Advance View Group Limited

Responding Party: None

T/R:      PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFFS 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. No opposition has been received.

CCP § 413.30 provides, “Where no provision is made in this chapter or other law for the service of summons, the court in which the action is pending may direct that summons be served in a manner which is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to be served and that proof of such service be made as prescribed by the court.”

Plaintiffs move for an order allowing service of summons on Defendant Delia Rosalba Simental Crespo and Coco Chavita via email to Fernando Ortiz. Plaintiffs assert Crespo is a resident of Mexico and attempts to serve at Crespo’s last known address in Sinaloa, Mexico have been unsuccessful. Plaintiffs represent that their counsel sent the complaint to three possible email addresses of Crespo in December 2022. Two of the emails bounced back and one sent to a Hotmail address went through. Plaintiffs claim Crespo used that Hotmail address as of at least November 2019. In April 2023, Plaintiff Qui received an email from Fernando Ortiz, an attorney in Mexico purporting to be Crespo’s counsel. The attorney did not respond to Plaintiff’s counsel’s request to accept service on behalf of Crespo.

The Court previously denied Plaintiffs’ motion to serve Crespo via her personal email address because Plaintiffs could not show the email was in use after 2019. The Court similarly is unpersuaded that service on Ortiz will result in actual notice to Defendants. Ortiz specifically stated he was not authorized to accept service for Crespo. Plaintiff has not heard from Ortiz in months. There is no evidence that an email to Ortiz will give Crespo or Chavita notice of the complaint.

In addition, CCP § 583.210(a) provides, “[t]he summons and complaint shall be served upon a defendant within three years after the action is commenced against the defendant. For the purpose of this subdivision, an action is commenced at the time the complaint is filed.” Plaintiff began this action more than four years ago, on September 4, 2019. These Defendants were named in the complaint filed that day. Plaintiffs do not explain why this section is inapplicable here.

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.