I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Rosalinda Padua (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Philip Barnes (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 25 for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision.    

On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendant, alleging Defendant was served by substituted service on June 26, 2023 at a business address located at 5840 Benner St Apt 208, Los Angeles, CA 90042, by serving “John Doe” described as a 50 year old Caucasian male.      

 On February 13, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to quash service of the summons and complaint. As of April 30, 2024, no opposition has been filed.   

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, Defendant declares that he was never served a copy of the summons and complaint, nor has he made any attempts at evading service in this action. (Barnes Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant avers that he has resided at North Avenue 47, Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June 2022 to the present day, and that he lives alone. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Defendant declares he has never resided at the service address 5840 Benner St Apt 208, Los Angeles, CA 90042, nor has he ever visited anyone at this location. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Further, Defendant declares that he does not know any person who resembles the description of “John Doe” who allegedly received service on his behalf. (Id. at ¶ 6.) 

Here, Defendant 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 April 30, 2024.  As of April 30, 2024, no opposition has been filed. Because the motion is unopposed, Plaintiff necessarily does not meet her burden establishing that service on Defendant was proper.    

III. CONCLUSION 

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

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 10th day of May 2024