Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV07239, Date: 2024-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV07239    Hearing Date: June 20, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: June 20, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Moving Party: Specially Appearing Defendant Total Resources International, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Monarch, LLC

T/R:     SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS IS DENIED.

TOTAL 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.

“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 Total Resources International, Inc. moves to quash service of the summons and complaint on the grounds that they were not properly served. The proof of service shows that Total’s agent for service, George del Carmen Rivera, was served by substitute service on Lito Capinia, a shipping manager for Total. Total asserts that this was improper because Capinia is not in charge of the office where Rivera works. Total represents that Capinia works in a different building from Rivera and is not in charge of Rivera’s office.

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Total’s secretary of state documents do not distinguish between two different buildings and argues that substitute service need only be made on someone “apparently” in charge. Capinia declares that he told the process server that he was the shipping manager. This is sufficient to show service was affected on someone “apparently” in charge.

Defendant’s motion to quash is DENIED.