SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff Ron A. Rosen Jonfaza (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants 1875/1925 Century Park East Company, et al. for damages related to premises liability.    

On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on defendant Pocrass & De Los Reyes, LLP alleging it personally served its authorized agent for service of process James Pocrass on May 7, 2022, at the address 1880 Century Park East, Suite 1415, Los Angeles, California 90067.  

 On July 28, 2023, specially appearing defendant Pocrass & De Los Reyes, LLP filed the instant motion to quash service of the summons and complaint. The motion is unopposed.   

 

II. Request for Judicial Notice 

 Pocrass & De Los Reyes, LLP requests the Court take judicial notice of the proof of service filed on March 15, 2023 as to Pocrass & De Los Reyes, LLP.  

The request is granted. (Evid. Code § 452(d).) 

 

III. 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.”].)   

Pocrass & De Los Reyes, LLP contend service upon James Pocrass was not proper, because the process server did not actually deliver the papers. Moving party provides the declaration of James Pocrass, who asserts that he never received the summons and complaint from any individual, and that no such documents were ever delivered or personally served to him. (Mot. Decl. Pocrass, ¶ 3.) Pocrass declares that the proof of service filed is incorrect. (Ibid.) Counsel for Pocrass & De Los Reyes, LLP further declares that she had a telephonic conversation with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the issue of proper service, in which Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to re-serve the lawsuit. (Mot. Decl. Rudat ¶ 2.) However, after several follow-up email correspondences of the same, Plaintiff still has yet to properly served Pocrass & De Los Reyes, LLP. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-10.) 

Here, Pocrass & De Los Reyes, LLP has rebutted the presumption that service was proper. The burden is therefore on 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 February 9, 2024. As of February 9, 2024, no opposition has been filed.  Because the motion is unopposed, Plaintiff necessarily does not meet his burden to establish that service on Pocrass & De Los Reyes, LLP was proper.    

 

Pocrass & De Los Reyes, LLP motion to quash service of the summons and complaint is therefore GRANTED.    

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.