Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV10290, Date: 2025-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV10290    Hearing Date: May 5, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 5, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Moving Party: Specially Appearing Defendant Evyatar Cohen

Responding Party: Plaintiff Cristina Bernal

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

“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 Evyatar Cohen moves to quash service of summons on the ground that service was not properly affected via the Hague Convention. The proof of service shows that Cohen was served at his mother’s address in Israel by leaving the complaint and summons on his mother’s door after she refused service. Cohen asserts that this does not amount to proper service because he does not live at the specified address, his mother was not authorized to accept service on his behalf, and his mother did not accept service.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that service was proper because Cohen provided this address as his personal address to the California Highway Patrol after the motor vehicle accident at issue in this action. Plaintiff also provides the declaration of the Israeli process server who served the papers and a certificate from the Courts of Israel stating that service had been properly affected. The process server declares that it is common for family addresses to be considered the permanent address of those in the family and that the service in this action was proper under Israeli law.

The Hague Convention and California Code of Civil Procedure require that service outside of the United States be made in accordance the laws of the place where service occurs or by a method prescribed by the Court in which the action is pending. (Article 5 of Hague Convention; CCP § 413.10(c).) Plaintiff has provided evidence that service was proper under Israeli law. Plaintiff has shown proper service.

This lawsuit arises out of Defendant’s allegedly negligent operation of a vehicle while in California. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this case. (Owens v. Superior Court (1959) 52 Cal.2d 822, 830–832.)

The motion to quash is DENIED.