Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV10041, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV10041    Hearing Date: July 12, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: July 12, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Moving Party: Defendant Jacob Carlson

Responding Party: Plaintiff Spring Towers, LLC

T/R:     THE MOTION IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

DEFENDANT TO FILE AN ANSWER WITHIN 5 DAYS.

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 and opposition.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Spring Towers, LLC filed this unlawful detainer action against Defendant Jacob Carlson on April 22, 2024.

On May 28, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to serve the summons and complaint by posting it at the subject premises and mailing it to the same address. Plaintiff later attested that it effected service by posting on June 5, 2024.

On June 18, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to quash service, claiming Plaintiff failed to serve the summons and complaint in the manner required by the Code of Civil Procedure.

ANALYSIS

A court lacks jurisdiction over a party if there has not been proper service of process. (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.) Compliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.) The filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper, but only if the proof of service satisfies relevant statutory requirements. (Id., at 1441-1442.)

“A summons in an action for unlawful detainer of real property may be served by posting if upon affidavit it appears to the satisfaction of the court in which the action is pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served ... other than [by] publication” and that certain other requirements are satisfied. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.45(a).)

The Court granted Plaintiff’s application to serve by posting. The Court found that Plaintiff had shown reasonable diligence in attempting to serve Defendant by other means.

If publication is ordered, “[t]he court shall order the summons to be posted on the premises in a manner most likely to give actual notice to the party to be served and direct that a copy of the summons and of the complaint be forthwith mailed by certified mail to such party at his last known address.” (Id., subd. (b).)

Defendant concedes he received the summons and complaint in the mail, but he argues Plaintiff did not post it on the premises as required. Defendant declares: “I never found a copy of the summons and complaint at the premises. No[ ]one has appeared at my home in an attempt to serve me with anything.” (Carlson Decl., 1:11-13.)

Plaintiff’s proof of service, accompanied by the declaration of a registered process server, establishes a presumption that service was properly effected. (Evid. Code § 647; Rodriguez v. Cho (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 742, 750.) Defendant cannot rebut this presumption by denying knowledge of service; he must offer some affirmative evidence that service did not take place in the manner Plaintiff claims. (See Louis & Diederich, Inc. v. Cambridge European Imports, Inc. (1987) 189 Cal. App. 3d 1574, 1591 [no finding can be predicated on the absence of evidence].)

Defendant has not rebutted the sworn statement by Plaintiff’s process server in the proof of service. Defendant’s motion is denied.