Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 22NWCV00839 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22NWCV00839, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00839 Hearing Date: October 18, 2022 Dept: SEC

PLYCRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. v. PLAYA MANAGEMENT, LLC

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00839

HEARING: 10/18/22 @ 10:30 AM

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Playa Management, LLC’s motion to quash service of summons is DENIED. Defendant is ORDERED to file a responsive pleading within “five days after service upon him of the written notice of entry of an order denying his motion.” (CCP § 1167.4(b).)

Opposing Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Playa Management, LLC moves to quash service of summons pursuant to CCP §§ 418.10 and 1167.4.

"(a) A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: "(1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her." (CCP § 418.10(a)(1).) In lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served as specified in Section 416.10, 416.20, 416.30, 416.40 or 416.50, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address.” (CCP § 415.20(a).)

“The summons shall be in the form specified in Section 412.20 except that when the defendant is served, the defendant’s response shall be filed within five days, excluding Saturdays and Sundays and other judicial holidays, after the complaint is served upon him or her.” (CCP §1167(a).)

“The service and filing of a notice of motion under subdivision (a) shall extend the defendant’s time to plead until five days after service upon him of the written notice of entry of an order denying his motion, except that for good cause shown the court may extend the defendant’s time to plead for an additional period not exceeding 15 days.” (CCP § 1167.4(b).)

Here, the proof of service filed on October 10, 2022, indicates that the summons and complaint were served by substituted service on September 25, 2022 on “John Doe, person in charge” at 2100-2148 E. Slauson Avenue, Huntington Park, CA.

Defendant contends that service was improper because it was made upon a security guard of a retail establishment known as The Syndicate, which is unrelated to Defendant. The court finds Defendant’s contention is not credible.

Plaintiff is the owner of the premises located at 2100-2148 E. Slauson Avenue, Huntington Park, CA. (Joffe Decl., ¶ 1.) Plaintiff is the Landlord and Defendant is the Tenant, an assignee of the Original Tenant. The Assignment and Assumption of Lease shows that Playa Management, LLC leased the premises where Defendant was served. (Id., Ex. A.) Defendant was served at the very premises that it leased from Plaintiff.

Further, Defendant informed Plaintiff that its dispensary operations were run by The Syndicate, and that The Syndicate was not subleasing the premises from Defendant. (Id., ¶ 4.) Thus, the relationship between Defendant and The Syndicate made it more likely than not that Defendant would receive process. In fact, Defendant admits that it has actual notice of the action. (See Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim Group, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1394.) "To be constitutionally sound the form of substituted service must be 'reasonably calculated to give an interested party actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard ... [in order that] the traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice implicit in due process are satisfied.' [Citations.]" (Zirbes v. Stratton (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1407, 1416.)

Defendant did actually receive notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard. Further, the court finds that Plaintiff substantially complied with the service statute by substituted service on Defendant’s office or usual mailing address.

The Motion is DENIED. Defendant is ORDERED to file a responsive pleading within “five days after service upon him of the written notice of entry of an order denying his motion.” (CCP § 1167.4(b).)