Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV00205, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV00205 Hearing Date: April 27, 2023 Dept: A
23CMCV00205
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
The complaint
alleges that Plaintiff is subrogated to the claims of its insured, who suffered
injuries in a car accident allegedly caused by Defendant, Nahid Jimenez, in a
vehicle owned by Defendant, Martin Jimenez. Plaintiff sues to recover insurance
benefits paid to its insured.
Specially
appearing Defendant, Nahid Jimenez-Cruz, moves to quash services of the summons
and complaint because service was purportedly made at her father’s home, where
she does not live. Defendant does not live in Los Angeles County. Defendant timely
served the motion by mail on April 4, 2023. Plaintiff filed a notice of
non-opposition conceding that service was not effected on March 5, 2023.
Plaintiff is continuing to locate and serve Defendant.
Defendant can move to quash service of
summons based on the court’s lack of jurisdiction over Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) Plaintiff bears the
burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that "all necessary
jurisdictional criteria are met." (Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior
Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d
1222, 1233; Dill v.
Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-1440.)
Personal
service of the summons and complaint may also be accomplished by delivering a copy
of the summons and complaint to the person to be served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10.) If personal delivery cannot be
accomplished, service may be made by leaving the documents at that person’s
dwelling house, usual place of abode, business, or mailing address with a
person apparently in charge, and thereafter by mailing a copy of the summons
and complaint to the same address. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20.)
The
proof of personal service filed in this case reflects that service was
accomplished by leaving the copies with a white female, aged 21-25. (Proof
filed 4/3/23.) Mr. Jimenez attests that he has been living with his wife at
that address, and that Defendant does not live there. (Jimenez decl. ¶ 2.) Mr.
Jimenez recalls a process server delivering documents on March 5, 2023, however
the server did not ask for Defendant. (Id.)
As Plaintiff has admitted
that service could not be successfully accomplished, the Court grants Defendant’s
Motion. The proof of service filed on April 3, 2023, is ordered quash.