Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21STCV16677, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 21STCV16677    Hearing Date: November 13, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 11/13/24

Case #21STCV16677

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Motion filed on 4/2/24.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Chatsworth Gardens Apartments, LLC (specially appearing)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Stephanie Hernandez; Aurora Gonzalez; Diamond Ayala, a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem Stephanie Hernandez; Mia Ayala, a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem Stephanie Hernandez and Ezra Cardenas, a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Stephanie Hernandez

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order quashing service of summons.

RULING: The motion is granted.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of Plaintiffs Stephanie Hernandez; Aurora Gonzalez; Diamond Ayala, a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem Stephanie Hernandez; Mia Ayala, a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem Stephanie Hernandez and Ezra Cardenas’, a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Stephanie Hernandez (collectively, Plaintiffs) tenancy in an apartment complex owned, managed and/or operated by Defendant Chatsworth Gardens Apartments, LLC (Chatsworth Gardens).  Plaintiffs claim that the apartment was infested with bed bugs and that they suffered personal injuries as a result. 

On 5/4/21, Plaintiffs filed this action against various defendants, including Chatsworth Gardens. On 4/2/24, Chatsworth Gardens filed and served the instant motion seeking an order quashing service of summons.  Plaintiffs have not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion. 

ANALYSIS

A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant.  See CCP 418.10(a)(1).

Chatsworth Gardens contends that Plaintiffs have failed to complete service of the summons and complaint on it and the summons which was improperly served is defective.  The proofs of service filed with the Court indicate that the summons and complaint were purportedly served on Chatsworth Gardens by leaving copies of the documents with Cynthia Garcia and Jennifer Garcia.  (Kanter Decl.); (See Proofs of Service filed 3/3/23).  Chatsworth Gardens indicates that Cynthia Garcia is not an employee of Chatsworth Gardens, is not authorized to accept service on behalf of Chatsworth Gardens and was not served with the summons and complaint.  (See Kanter Decl.; Cynthia Garcia Decl.).  Defendant indicates that Jennifer Garcia was a manager, but not authorized to accept service on behalf of Chatsworth Gardens.  (Kanter Decl.; Jennifer Garcia Decl.).  Defendant contends that on or about 1/9/23, Jennifer Garcia found a summons, only, on the floor in front of her unit.  (Kanter Decl.; Jennifer Garcia Decl.).

Chatsworth Gardens argues that the summons which was improperly left in front of Jennifer Garcia’s unit and not accompanied by the complaint is defective because it listed the courthouse address as 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.  This case was originally pending in the Spring Street Courthouse.

In response to this motion, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of establishing the court has jurisdiction over Chatsworth Gardens based on the purported service.  See Summers (2006) 140 CA4th 403, 413.     

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.