Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV21828, Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV21828 Hearing Date: August 31, 2022 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion
to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint
Moving Party: Defendant
Mohamed Elshahat Aboselim
Resp. Party: Plaintiff Rafik Belferoum
Defendant’s motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND:
Plaintiff Rafik Belferoum commenced this
action on July 6, 2022. Plaintiff filed proof of service on July 11, 2022.
Plaintiff’s private process server, Miguel Lopez, declared under penalty of
perjury that after two attempts at serving on July 7 and 8, 2022, he completed
substituted service on Saturday, July 9, 2022 at 3:13 p.m. by leaving them with
Roger Abdul, a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the
business address (11321 South Main Street, Los Angeles, California 90061) and
informing Mr. Abdul about the contents of the papers. (Proof of Service, pp. 1
and 3.) Later that same day, the process server mailed a copy of the documents
to the same address. (Id., at p. 3.)
Defendant in pro per filed his Motion to
Quash Service of Summon [sic] and Complaint on August 5, 2022. Defendant avers
that the service was on an adjacent business and not at his own business.
(Mot., pp. 3–4.) Defendant further avers that he did not receive the mailed
service package. (Id.) Defendant argues: (1) that “California courts
have explicitly held that service of process is strictly construed against the
plaintiff”; (2) that he has not been properly served; and (3) that the Court
should therefore grant his motion to quash the summons and the complaint.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Legal Standard
“A summons may
be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to
the person to be served.” (CCP § 415.10.)
“In lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the
summons and complaint to the person to be served as specified in Section
416.10, 416.20, 416.30, 416.40, or 416.50, a summons may be served by leaving a
copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her
office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing
address, other than a United States Postal Service post office box, with the
person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of
the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to
be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.
When service is effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at a
mailing address, it shall be left with a person at least 18 years of age, who
shall be informed of the contents thereof. Service of a summons in this manner
is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.” (CCP § 415.20(a).)
“It is well settled that strict compliance with
statutes governing service of process is not required. Rather, in deciding whether
service was valid, the statutory provisions regarding service of process should be liberally construed
to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice
has been received by the defendant.” (Summers
v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 410–11 (quoting Gibble v.
Car-Lene Research (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 295, 313).)
II.
Discussion
Here, Plaintiff properly effected service on Defendant. The statute’s
requirements are clear:
In lieu of personal delivery…a summons may be served
by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours
in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her
usual mailing address… with the person who is apparently in charge
thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by
first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the
place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. When service is
effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at a mailing address,
it shall be left with a person at least 18 years of age, who shall be
informed of the contents thereof. . . .” (CCP § 415.20(a) [emphases added].)
Each element of the statute is met. Defendant admits that his business
“is a one-man Smog Shop with visible signs that opened from 7 am to 6 pm Monday
through Saturday. . . .” (Mot., p. 4:2–4.) Plaintiff’s process server served
the service package on Saturday, July 9, 2022 at 3:13 p.m., which is during
usual office hours. (Proof of Service, p. 1, Section 5.b.) Service was done on
an adult, Roger Abdul, who appeared to be in charge at Defendant’s usual
mailing address: 11321 South Main Street, Los Angeles, California 90061. (Opposition,
p. 3:16–18.) Mr. Abdul was informed of the contents. (Proof of Service, p. 1.)
Later that same day, the process server mailed a copy of the documents. (Id.,
at p. 3.)
Defendant argues that he was not actually served at his business
address, even though in both his Motion and Reply he lists his address as 11321
South Main Street, Los Angeles, California 90061. (Mot., p. 1; Reply, p. 1.)
Defendant avers that his business is only a smog shop and that he shares an
address with a business next door, which is a gas station and food shop. (Mot.,
p. 4:9–11.) Defendant clarifies that while he admits 11321 South Main Street is
his address, he has no affiliation with the gas station and food mart where the
summons and complaint were left. (Reply, p. 2:2–4.)
The Court finds Defendant’s argument to be unpersuasive. The statute
does not require that service be done on his business itself. It merely
requires that it be done at his or her usual mailing address. There is no
dispute that 11321 South Main Street, where service was effected, is
Defendant’s usual mailing address. Personal jurisdiction is thus met here.
III. Conclusion
Defendant Mohamed Elshahat Aboselim’s
Motion to Quash Summons and Complaint is DENIED.