Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22NWCV01118, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01118    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: SEC

WHITTIER CITYCENTER, LLC v. A&A FABRICATION AND POLISHING CORPORATION

CASE NO.:  22NWCV01118

HEARING:  12/08/22

ADD-ON 2

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant A&A FABRICATION AND POLISHING CORPORATION’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint is DENIED. Defendant A&A FABRICATION AND POLISHING CORPORATION is ORDERED to file and serve its Answer by no later than 5 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Opposing Party to give Notice.

No Reply filed as of December 7, 2022.   

Defendant A&A FABRICATION AND POLISHING CORPORATION (“Defendant”) moves to quash service of summons on the ground that the Summons and Complaint were served on an Alfred Henderson—an individual not authorized to accept service on behalf of Defendant.  

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that service upon Mr. Henderson was proper under CCP §415.20 as Mr. Henderson is/was the V.P. of the defendant-corporation and/or because Mr. Henderson was the person apparently in charge of the office at the time service was effectuated.

Defendant’s argument that service was defective is flawed. CCP §415.20(a) expressly provides that substituted service is appropriate “[i]n lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served as specific in Section 416.10,” which is the section that governs service of corporations. Process may be served by substituted service on a corporation by “leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office … with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.” (CCP §415.20(a).) Statutes governing substituted service shall be “liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold jurisdiction if actual notice has been received by the defendant…. [Citation.]”  (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544.) Substituted service must be made upon a person whose relationship with the person to be served makes it more likely than not that they will deliver process to the named party. (Id.)

The evidence reflects that on October 31, 2022, Plaintiff served a copy of the Complaint and Summons on Edward H. Henderson.  Given Mr. Henderson’s undisputed relationship with the Defendant-corporation, the Court finds that Plaintiff substantially complied with the service of summons statute by leaving a copy of the Summons and Complaint with the apparent person in charge at the time of service—the former/current V.P. of the company. Although Mr. Henderson declares, under penalty of perjury, that is not employed by Defendant, Mr. Henderson does not otherwise explain what he was doing at the business’s address on the date service was effectuated.

Moreover, Plaintiff mailed a copy of the Complaint and Summons on the same day. The Court finds that delivery to Mr. Henderson substantially complies with the service of summons statute.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.