Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV00370, Date: 2025-02-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24CHCV00370 Hearing Date: February 18, 2025 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 2/18/25
Case #24CHCV00370
MOTION TO QUASH
SERVICE OF SUMMONS
Motion filed on 1/6/25. Notice of Errata filed 1/7/25.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Hasa, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Fracisco Velasquez
NOTICE: ok
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order
quashing the service of summons in this action on the grounds that the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
RULING: The motion is denied.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On 2/6/24, Plaintiff Francisco Velasquez, individually,
and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private
Attorney General Act (Plaintiff) filed this Private Attorney General Action
(PAGA) action against Defendant Hasa, Inc. (Defendant) alleging a cause of
action for Violation of California Labor Code 2698, et seq.
On 2/27/25,
Plaintiff filed a proof of service indicating that Defendant’s
registered agent for service of process, Florence Sy (Sy), was served by
substitute service at 23119 Drayton Street, Santa Clarita, California 91350
(Drayton Address). (See 2/27/25
Proof of Service). Defendant contends
that as of late 2023, although it still operated a factory at the Drayton
Address, its corporate offices, including the office of Sy, moved to a
temporary location at 25124 Springfield Court, Suite 120, Santa Clarita,
California 91355 (Springfield Address) before moving, on 3/1/24, to its
permanent location across the parking lot of the Springfield Address. (Bunch Decl.).
Defendant’s counsel contends that he first learned of the
action in October of 2024. (McLoughlin
Decl.). On 10/22/24, Defendant’s counsel
emailed Plaintiff’s counsel claiming that the service was ineffective, offering
to accept service of the summons and complaint on Defendant’s behalf if
Plaintiff’s counsel sent him copies of the summons, complaint, and other
applicable materials, as well as two copies of the form Notice and
Acknowledgement of Receipt. (McLoughlin
Decl. ¶¶6-7, Ex.D-E). Counsel for the
parties could not come to an agreement regarding when and/or what type of
response to the complaint would be filed.
(McLoughlin Decl. ¶¶8-10, Ex.F-G; Rinehart Decl.).
Therefore, on 1/6/25, Defendant filed and served the
instant motion seeking an order quashing the service of summons in this action
on the grounds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Plaintiff has opposed the motion and
Defendant has filed a reply to the opposition.
ANALYSIS
On or before the last day to plead, or within any further
time that the court may for good cause allow, a defendant may move to quash
service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over the
defendant. CCP 418.10(a)(1). When a defendant challenges the jurisdiction
of the court by moving to quash service, the plaintiff has the burden of
establishing jurisdiction by proving,
among other things, the facts showing effective service. Dill (1994) 24 CA4th 1426, 1439-1440.
Service statutes are to be liberally construed to
effectuate service and jurisdiction if actual notice is received by the
defendant. Gibble (1998) 67 CA4th
295, 313; Ellard (2001) 94 CA4th 540, 544; Bein (1992) 6 CA4th 1387, 1392; Trackman (2010)
187 CA4th 175.
CCP 416.10 provides, in relevant part:
“A summons may be served on a
corporation by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint by any of the following methods:
(a) To the person designated as
agent for service of process as provided by any provision in Section
202, 1502, 2105, or 2107
of the Corporations Code (or Sections
3301 to 3303,
inclusive, or Sections 6500 to 6504, inclusive, of the Corporations Code, as in effect on December 31, 1976, with respect to corporations to which
they remain applicable).
(b) To the president, chief executive officer, or other head of
the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a
treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or
chief financial officer, a general manager, or a person
authorized by the corporation to receive service of process.”
A corporation’s agent for service of process may be
served personally or by substitute service at the agent’s address designated
for service of process. CCP 415.10; CCP
415.20(a). Corporations Code 1502
provides that a corporation must file, within 90 days after the filing of its
original articles and annually thereafter during the applicable filing period,
a statement containing certain information, including an agent for service of
process and if that agent is a natural person, the person’s business or
residence address. See
Corporations Code 1502(a), (b).
Corporations Code 1502(e) goes on to state:
“Whenever any of the information
required by subdivision (a) is changed, the corporation may file a current
statement containing all the information required by subdivisions (a) and (b). In order to change its agent for
service of process or the address of the agent, the corporation must file a
current statement containing all the information required by subdivisions (a)
and (b). Whenever any statement is filed pursuant to this section, it
supersedes any previously filed statement and the statement in the articles as
to the agent for service of process and the address of the agent.”
(emphasis added)
Here, there is no dispute that at the time of service on
2/9/24, Defendant’s Statement of Information on file with the California
Secretary of State listed Defendant’s principal address and mailing address as
the Drayton Address; listed Sy as the agent for service of process and listed
the Drayton Address as Sy’s address. (See
McLoughlin Decl. ¶¶2-3, Ex.A-B). It was
not until more than six months after the service of the summons and complaint that
Defendant filed and updated Statement of Information. Id.
Defendant provides no authority for the proposition that
because it chose not to update the address for its agent for service of process
until more than six months after it purportedly changed, and after its agent
for service of process was served with a summons and complaint via substitute
service at the address on file with the Secretary of State, Defendant can claim
that it was not properly served. As
noted, in Plaintiff’s counsel’s 10/24/24 email, such reasoning could lead to
corporations successfully evading service of process by moving their agent’s
address after filing their annual Statement of Information. (See McLoughlin Decl., Ex.F). Moreover,
Defendant’s position is contradicted by the language of Corporations
Code 1502(e) which, as noted above, provides “[i]n order to change…the address of
the agent [for service of process], the corporation must file a current
statement containing all of the information required by subdivisions (a) and
(b).” Since Defendant chose not to file
a current statement with the updated address information for its agent for
service of process, the address for serving its agent in February 2024 remained
the Drayton Address. (See
McLoughlin Decl., Ex.A-B). Interpreting
Corporations Code 1502(e) otherwise, would place an unreasonable burden on anyone
attempting to serve a corporation with process because they could not rely on
the information contained in the Statement of Information filed with the
Secretary of State.
Additionally, the Court notes that Defendant has failed
to provide any evidence indicating that Defendant itself was not aware of this
action when the summons and complaint were served in February of 2024. Rather, Defendant’s counsel merely states
that in or around October 2024, he was notified that Defendant had
received various discovery requests from Plaintiff and upon investigation
learned of the service on Defendant.
(McLoughlin Decl. ¶6). The only
declaration from an employee of Defendant, the Human Resources Director, does
not state that Defendant was unaware of the action when served. (See Bunch Decl.).
In addition to the proof of service filed on 2/27/24,
with the opposition to this motion, Plaintiff has filed a declaration of the
process server, Gustavo Gonzalez, indicating that when he asked for Sy
(Defendant’s agent for service of process) at the Drayton Address, he was told Sy
“was not available” by an unidentified front desk employee who then called over
another employee who identified themselves as “Frankie Paice, Hasa Inc.’s
Clerk.” (See Gonzalez Decl. ¶6). Gonzalez does not state that either of Defendant’s
employees indicated that Sy no longer had an office at the Drayton Address,
indicated that they could not accept the service on behalf of Sy, or provided
him with the Springfield Address. (See
Gonzalez Decl., generally). On the other
hand, Defendant merely offers the declaration of its Human Resources Director,
Alma Bunch, who states, without any supporting documentation, that in late
2023, Defendant relocated all of its corporate offices, including Sy’s office
from the Drayton Address. (Bunch Decl. ¶¶3-7). Further, Bunch merely states on information
and belief “that during February 2024, had any person contacting the Drayton
Street production facility asked for Florence Sy or asked where Hasa’s
corporate offices were located, that person would have been informed that
Florence Sy and Hasa’s corporate offices were located in Valencia at the
Temporary Offices located on Springfield Court.
Upon request, the specific address of the Temporary Offices would have
been provided.” (Bunch Decl. ¶8).
Notably, Defendant has not provided a declaration from
the front desk employee at the Drayton Address or Frankie Paice, who was
specifically identified in the proof of service and Gonzalez’s declaration, to
support Bunch’s “belief” as to what would have occurred. Further, Defendant has not provided a
declaration from Sy indicating that she did not receive the summons and
complaint served on 2/9/24 and, thereafter, mailed to the Drayton Address.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant
was properly served with the summons and complaint.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions under CCP 128.5 is
denied. Plaintiff specifically requests,
sanctions, not expenses, be awarded pursuant to CCP 128.5. (See Opposition, p.15:5-6, p.15:18 As such, a separate motion filed pursuant to
the requirements set forth in CCP 128.5(f) was required.
CONCLUSION
The motion is denied.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is denied as the
Court found the information unnecessary to rule on the motion. Accordingly, Defendant’s objection to
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is moot.
Plaintiff’s objections, numbers 1 and 3, to the declaration
of Alma Bunch are overruled. Plaintiff’s
objections, numbers 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, to the declaration of Alma Bunch are
sustained. With regard to objection 2,
Bunch fails to offer the written lease (the best evidence) to support her
statement. With regard to objections 4,
5 and 6, Bunch has failed to establish that she has personal knowledge that Sy
exclusively operated from the new location (i.e., only Sy can state that she
never went back to her office at the Drayton Address). With regard to objection 7, Bunch lacks
personal knowledge as to what occurred.
Defendant’s objections, numbers 1 and 2, to the declaration
of Melissa Rinehart are sustained.