SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

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

On March 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on defendant Tyrei Lacy (“Lacy”) alleging Lacy was served via substituted service on March 28, 2023, at a business address located at 3888 Crenshaw Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90008, by serving “Kiona-Manager”. On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff re-filed the same proof of service.      

 On April 27, 2023, Lacy filed the instant motion to quash service of the summons and complaint. The motion is unopposed.   

  

II. Motion to Quash Service of Summons 

“[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.]” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.)  

 

When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving the facts requisite to an effective service. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) “The filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper. However, the presumption arises only if the proof of service complies with the applicable statutory requirements.” (Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 790.) 

“ ‘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.”].)   

Here, Lacy declares she is a named defendant via a recently filed amended complaint, and that she was not served with process by the Los Angeles Sheriff Department on March 28, 2023. Lacy avers she was not present at that location at the time of service, and that “Kiona-Manager” is not a person authorized to accept service on Lacy’s behalf. 

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 January 22, 2024.  As of January 22, 2024, no opposition has been filed.  Because the motion is unopposed, Plaintiff necessarily did not meet the burden to establish that service on Lacy was proper.    

 

Lacy’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint is therefore GRANTED.