Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV01192, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV01192 Hearing Date: December 5, 2023 Dept: A
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
The verified complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a resident
with physical disabilities who noted that the sales counter Defendant’s store,
Jack’s Jug Liquor, was too high, and the paths of travel were too narrow, in
violation of standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff
alleges claims under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Defendant, Rangpur, Inc. (“Rangpur”), argues that service of
the summons and complaint by substituted service was improper, because
Plaintiff did not serve Defendant’s authorized agent for service of process. The
documents were not personally delivered to Rangpur’s agent. Plaintiff’s new
counsel, Prathima Reddy Price, substituted in on October 4, 2023, and was
timely served with the motion. Plaintiff did not file an opposition by November
20, 2023 (nine court days before the hearing). (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 subd.
(b).)
Defendant can move to quash service of
summons based on the court’s lack of jurisdiction over it. (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.)
Summons may be served on a corporation by
delivering the papers to its designated agent for service of process, a person
authorized to receive such service, or to an officer of the corporation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 416.10.) Plaintiff served “Reynaldo Aleman-person
in charge.” (POS filed September 20, 2023.) However, the proof of service
identifies “Romana Chowdhury” as the agent for service of process. (Id.) Additionally, Tahmedur Rahman declares that the process server spoke
to the cashier at the store, Victor Alvarado, who is not an authorized agent. The
process server did not deliver any papers. (Rahman Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.)
As service was not properly accomplished
on Defendant, Rangpur, Inc., the motion is GRANTED.