Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV17213, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 23STCV17213    Hearing Date: November 22, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint

Moving Party: Specially-Appearing Defendant Chrissy Taylor

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff EM Valencia, in propria persona

The Motion is GRANTED. The Proof of Service of Summons is QUASHED.

BACKGROUND:

On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff “EM Valencia,” in propria persona, filed their Complaint against Defendant Jimmy Lara (erroneously sued as “Jimmy”) on a cause of action for “intentional tort.”

On July 31, 2023, Plaintiff amended their Complaint to substitute Doe 1 with Chrissy Taylor.

On October 19, 2023, Defendant Jimmy Lara filed their Answer to the Complaint.

On October 19, 2023, Specially-Appearing Defendant Chrissy Taylor filed their Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint (“Motion”).

On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed their Objection to the Motion (“Objection”).

No reply or other response has been filed regarding the Motion.

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. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete at the time of such delivery. The date upon which personal delivery is made shall be entered on or affixed to the face of the copy of the summons at the time of its delivery. However, service of a summons without such date shall be valid and effective.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (a).)

“If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, as specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the 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. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)

“A summons may be served by mail as provided in this section. A copy of the summons and of the complaint shall be mailed (by first-class mail or airmail, postage prepaid) to the person to be served, together with two copies of the notice and acknowledgment provided for in subdivision (b) and a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the sender.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.30, subd. (a).)

“Service of a summons pursuant to this section is deemed complete on the date a written acknowledgement of receipt of summons is executed, if such acknowledgement thereafter is returned to the sender.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.30, subd. (c).)

“A summons may be served on a person outside this state in any manner provided by this article or by sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, requiring a return receipt. Service of a summons by this form of mail is deemed complete on the 10th day after such mailing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.40.)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).)

II.       Discussion

Specially-Appearing Defendant Chrissy Taylor moves the Court to quash service of the summons and Complaint on them. Specially-Appearing Defendant argues: (1) that a party may specially appear to challenge jurisdiction; (2) that Plaintiff has the burden to prove adequate service; (3) that service by mail requires certain procedural compliance steps; and (4) that a parent-subsidiary relationship is insufficient for jurisdiction. (Motion, pp. 4:7, 4:18–19, 5:7, 5:16–17.)

Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing that a defendant may not use a motion to quash service of summons to dispute the truth of the allegations contained in a civil complaint. (Opposition, p. 1:27–28.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that a defendant may not use this type of motion to dispute the truth of the allegations contained in a civil complaint. However, Specially-Appearing Defendant has also argued that service of the summons and complaint was inadequate here because: (1) Plaintiff did not use the specific forms for service; and (2) there was no voluntary service of those forms, with proof of that voluntary service. (Motion, p. 5:8–10.)

The Court agrees with Specially-Appearing Defendant. Plaintiff has not met their burden of proof to demonstrate that the statutory service requirements have been met here.

III.     Conclusion

The Motion is GRANTED. The Proof of Service of Summons is QUASHED.