SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On August 28, 2020, Plaintiffs Ana Rodriguez and Rafael Duenas (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant Ron Raushcenberger for injuries Plaintiff sustained arising from a motor vehicle incident. On September 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint naming Rainey Grenier (“Grenier”) as Doe 1.  

On January 7, 2022, Plaintiffs served Grenier the summons, complaint, and amendment to complaint by substituted service at 4218 Troost Ave Unit 16, Studio City, CA 91604.  

On May 11, 2022, Grenier moved to quash service of the summons and complaint. On August 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation regarding Grenier’s motion to quash service of the summons and complaint, in which the parties stipulated that the proof of service was quashed. The stipulation was signed by counsel for Grenier and Plaintiffs’ counsel. Based upon the the stipulation, the court granted Grenier’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint. (Min. Order, Aug. 24, 2022.)  

On September 6, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ application to serve Grenier by publication with the Los Angeles Daily News. (Order for Pub., Sept 6, 2022.) On November 29, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an affidavit of publication, indicating service of the summons was completed on October 13, 2022. 

At this time, Grenier moves to quash service of the summons.  Plaintiffs oppose the motion.   

 

II. Motion to Quash Service of Summons  

“A defendant . . . 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. . . .”  (CCP § 418.10(a).)   

“ ‘On a motion to quash service of summons, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that all jurisdictional criteria are met. [Citations.] The burden must be met by competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documents; an unverified complaint may not be considered as supplying the necessary facts.’ [Citation.]”  (Brown v. Garcia (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1198, 1203; see also Sheard v. Superior Court (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 207, 211 [“[W]here a defendant properly moves to quash service of summons the burden is on the plaintiff to prove facts requisite to the effective service.”].)   

“A defendant is under no duty to respond in any way to a defectively served summons. It makes no difference that defendant had actual knowledge of the action. Such knowledge does not dispense with statutory requirements for service of summons.”  (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2015) ¶4:414, p. 4-67 citing Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1457, 1466 (Kappel) and Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808 (Ruttenberg)) “[N]otice does not substitute for proper service. Until statutory requirements are satisfied, the court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant.”  (Ruttenberg, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 808.)  “[I]n California, ‘…the original service of process, which confers jurisdiction, must conform to statutory requirements or all that follows is void.”'  (Id. at p. 809.) 

Service by publication is to be “utilized only as a last resort.”  (Watts v. Crawford (1995) 10 Cal.4th 743, 749 fn. 5.)  If a defendant’s address is ascertainable, some other method of service must be employed.  (See id.)  If factual allegations in support of a Section 415.50 application for service by publication are proved false, an order for publication based on it may be set aside.  (See Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. Hendrix (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 740, 746.)     

Reasonable diligence is required to locate a person before resorting to notice by publication. (Donel, Inc. v. Badalian (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 327, 333.) As to what constitutes, “No single formula nor mode of search can be said to constitute due diligence in every case.” (Id.)  “The question is simply whether [Plaintiff] took those steps which a reasonable person who truly desired to give notice would have taken under the circumstances.” (Donel, Inc. v. Badalian (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 327, 333.) 

 

III. Discussion  

Here, Grenier’s counsel contends that service by publication was improper because Defendant, at the time, relocated from the United States to an unknown domicile in Asia. Grenier’s counsel contends that Grenier relocated to Asia at least one year ago, and therefore service by publication in the Los Angeles Daily News was ineffective. 

In opposition, Plaintiffs contend Grenier has been evading service for two years, and that Grenier only provides the declaration of his counsel, in which it is only believed that Grenier had relocated to Asia. Plaintiffs contend they effectuated service through publication and have satisfied the requirements of Government Code § 6064. Plaintiffs also object to Grenier’s counsel’s declaration, ¶¶ 8-9, wherein Grenier’s counsel declares under information and belief that Grenier has not resided in United States for at least one year and that Grenier has relocated to an unknown address in Asia. The Court sustains the objections, because Grenier’s counsel lacks the requisite foundation for these statements.  

Grenier’s counsel declares he has been unable to communicate with Grenier, and throughout counsel’s involvement in this matter, counsel has “had no contact with Defendant Rainey Grenier.” (Mot. Decl. Gonter, ¶ 7.) Furthermore, Grenier’s counsel declares “upon information and belief” that it is his understanding that Grenier has relocated to Asia and no longer resides in the United States. However, Grenier’s counsel fails to state the source of this information, especially in light of Grenier’s counsel representation that he has had no contact with Grenier. Grenier’s counsel’s attempts to locate Grenier, and employment of a private investigator, does not reference or in any manner support Grenier’s contention that Grenier resides in Asia. A filed proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper, if it complies with applicable statutory requirements. (Floveyor Internat. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795.) Grenier’s counsel does not rebut the presumption that service by publication through the Los Angeles Daily News was proper.  

 

Based on the foregoing, Grenier’s motion to quash service is DENIED.   

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 18th day of September 2023