Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV38285, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38285    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Kai Smith (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Game Sports Bar and Grill, LLC (“Defendant”), et al. for injuries Plaintiff sustained at Defendant’s business when he was allegedly attacked by Defendant’s bouncers. 

On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendant alleging Defendant was served via substitute service on September 20, 2022, at an address located at 2208 S Victoria Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90016, by serving “Game Sports Bar & Grill Inc. [¶] Attn: Tyrei Lacy” by leaving the documents with a Sylvia Lacy.      

On October 20, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion to quash service of the summons and complaint.  The motion is unopposed.

2. Motion to Quash Service Summons

“ ‘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.)

Here, Defendant contends that the proof of service filed October 3, 2022, does not properly reflect Defendant’s legal name, and that Sylvia Lacy is not authorized to accept service on behalf of Defendant.  Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not properly serve it as a corporate entity, as Defendant’s authorized agent for service of process was not at the location where the purported service took place. 

When a defendant files a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that service of the summons and complaint was proper.  (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)  Any opposition to the motion was due on or before March 22, 2023.  As of March 28, 2023, no opposition has been filed.  Because the motion is unopposed, Plaintiff necessarily did not meet the burden to establish that service on Defendant was proper. 

            The motion to quash service of summons and complaint is therefore granted. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 5^th day of April 2023