Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STLC05004, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC05004    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 3, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Moving Party: Specially Appearing Defendants M-Aurora Toluca Hills Lessee, LLC and Worldwide Corporate Housing, L.P.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Melissa Marsh

T/R:    SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANTs’ MOTION TO QUASH IS GRANTED.

            DEFENDANTs 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 January 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants, asserting causes of action for (1) declaratory relief and injunctive relief; (2) retaliatory eviction/harassment; and (3) breach of contract. Plaintiff, a tenant in a unit owned by Defendant, alleges Defendants wrongfully changed the terms of Plaintiff’s rent, wrongfully removed furniture and household items, refused to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability, and evicted her in retaliation for her requests.

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 Defendants, who were recently added as Does, move to quash service of summons on the grounds that they were not properly served. Defendants also assert they were improperly added as Does because Plaintiff was aware of their identity before filing this suit.

Plaintiff concedes Defendants were improperly served. As for the Doe issue, Plaintiff asserts she was not aware of Defendants’ roles in the action at the time of filing suit. Courts have held that “a plaintiff can avail him or herself of section 474 if the plaintiff is ignorant of facts that give rise to a cause of action against a person who is otherwise known to the plaintiff.” (McOwan v. Grossman (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 937, 942–943.)

As Defendants were improperly served, the motion is GRANTED.