Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

On July 31, 2024, plaintiffs Herbert Mazorow and Carmen Mazorow (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this unlawful detainer action against defendants Alvin Smith, Jr. (“Smith”), Jamal Kevell Parker, and Does 1 to 10. 

On August 14, 2024, in pro per defendant Smith filed the instant motion to quash service of summons and complaint on the grounds that he was not personally served with the summons and complaint because he found the documents on the floor outside the premises. 

On October 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition contending that no proof of service had been filed prior to the filing of Smith’s motion. Further, Plaintiffs argue the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to serve the summons and complaint by posting on September 18, 2024. 

Any reply was due on or before October 23, 2024. No reply has been filed to date. 

 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

“[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.”].) 

 

III. DISCUSSION 

There was no proof of service filed prior to the instant motion for Smith to quash, nor does Smith provide any information on when the purportedly defective service was noticed by him. Plaintiffs contend they do not assert that the summons and complaint were served prior to the Court signing the order to post. 

The process statutes should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by the defendant, and in the last analysis the question of service should be resolved by considering each situation from a practical standpoint. (See Espindola v. Nunez (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1389; Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544-45.)  

Here, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to serve Smith by posting the summons and complaint on the premises in a manner most likely to give Smith actual notice, and by immediately mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to Smith’s last known address. (App. & Order, Sept. 18, 2024.) On October 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed proof of service that the summons and complaint were served in accordance with the approved application by posting, which creates the rebuttable presumption that service was proper. It is also undisputed that Smith has actual notice of the action, considering his statement that he found the summons and complaint at the front door. 

 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Smith’s motion to quash service of the summons and complaint is DENIED. 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: October 29, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

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 SMCDEPT78@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.