Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 24STCV03878, Date: 2024-08-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV03878 Hearing Date: August 26, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing Date: August
26, 2024
Moving Party: Defendants Irori Restaurant
Management Inc., and Byung Ha Chang
Responding
Party: Plaintiff
Joo Young Jun
Motion:
Motion to Quash
Service of Summons and Complaint
Tentative
Ruling: The Court considered the moving
papers, opposition, and reply. Both the Motions to Quash Service of Summons
and Complaint filed by Defendants Irori Restaurant Management Inc., and
Byung Ha Chang are DENIED.
Background
On February 15, 2024, Joo Young Jun
(Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against their former employer Irori Restaurant
Management Inc. (Irori), and owner and Chief Executive Officer Byung Ha Chang
(Chang) alleging several violations of California Labor Codes. The motions now
before the Court are:
1.
Irori Restaurant
Management Inc.’s Motion to Quash
Service of Summons and Complaint
2.
Byung Ha Chang’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and
Complaint (hereinafter, the Motions)
Plaintiff
opposes both Motions, Irori and Chang (Defendants) file a reply.
Request for Judicial Notice
Upon
reply Irori requests that the Court judicially notice the following:
1.
The Proof of Service of Summons
filed by Plaintiffs on April 24, 2024.
Pursuant to
Evid. Code §452(d), the request for judicial notice is granted.
Discussion
Legal Standard
Complainants have the initial burden to evidence valid statutory service
of a summons and complaint. (Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24
Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-40 (“Dill”); Floveyor Internat. v.
Sup. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 789, 794.) Court findings as to
conflicting proof regarding whether a summons and complaint were properly
served are upheld if based upon substantial evidence. (Stafford v. Mach
(1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) A trial court has discretion as to whether
to accept a process server declaration, or contradictory evidence, in deciding
whether service of a summons and complaint was validly accomplished. (Am. Express
Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 383, 390.)
Analysis
The
Court addresses both Motions here as both Defendants put forth the same
argument. Both Defendants contend that service of the Summons and Complaint
should be squashed because service was improper. Specifically, Defendants
contend that the substituted service that was completed was completed at the
wrong address. The proof of service for both Defendants filed with the Court on
February 27, 2024 by Plaintiff demonstrates that the process server attempted
personal service at 4405 Fruitland Avenue, Vernon, CA 90058 (the “Fruitland
Address”). However, both Defendants contend that the correct business address
for both Defendants is the address for Irori Restaurant Management, Inc. which
is 4371 Glencoe Avenue, Suite B4 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 (the “Glencoe
Address”).
Plaintiff
counters upon opposition arguing the Fruitland Address is the address listed as
the mailing address for the agent for service of process, which is Chang. The
Court notes that there are in fact multiple proofs of service for the service
of the Summons and Complaint. The proof of services for both Defendants filed
on February 27, 2024 show the process server attempted personal service on the
Fruitland Address three separate times, then left a copy with a manager named
Stan Kim on February 26, 2024, and mailed the Summons and Complaint to the same
Fruitland address the next day. The proof of service filed on April 24, 2024,
shows the process server attempted to execute personal service on Irori at the
Glencoe Address, however, it is unclear how many attempts were made before the
substituted service claimed in the POS-010. There, the documents were left with
an employee named Mink B. The proof of service filed on April 29, 2024 shows
the process server attempted to execute personal service on Chang at the
Glencoe Address, and after three attempts left the Summons and Complaint with a
manager named Andy Choi and mailed the Summons and Complaint to the same
address.
Upon
reply, Irori only attacks the April 24, 2024 proof of service, but is silent as
to the February 27 and April 29 proofs of service. Upon reply, Chang only attacks
the April 29, 2024 proof of service.
Both Defendants
completely ignore the fact the proof of service was proper in the initial
February 27, 2024 proofs of service because the address served was the address
designated for service by Defendants themselves. With regard to corporations “The
most common method is by service on the corporation's designated agent for
service of process.” (Ramos v. Homeward Residential, Inc. (2014) 223
Cal.App.4th 1434, 1437. Also see Code Civ. Proc. §416.10(a) and (b).)
With regard to Irori, service was sufficient via the February 27, 2024 proofs
of service. With regard to Chang, the April 29, 2024 proof of service shows
service was sufficient. The initial service on both Defendants as shown in the
initial February 27, 2024 proofs of service was also proper, and Defendants
provide no authority to the contrary.
Conclusion
Both the Motions to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint filed by Defendants
Irori Restaurant Management Inc., and Byung Ha Chang are DENIED.
It is so ordered.
Dated: August 26, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court