Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 24STCV17395, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Randolph M. Hammock, Case: 24STCV17395, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Clare P.M. Sassoon brings this action against her landlords Air Venezia, LLC, and Michelle Levix. Plaintiff alleges Defendants have attempted to evict Plaintiff from her unit in Venice based on Defendants’ false assertion that Plaintiff is subletting her unit. Plaintiff also alleges a pattern of harassment and “dirty tricks” by Defendants. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) breach of express and implied contract, (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) tenant harassment, (4) intentional and/or negligent interference with contractual and/or prospective business relationship, (5) negligence, and (6) violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

“A defendant . . . may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: (1) [t]o quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a).) “[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.) “[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper” but only if it “complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.” (Id. at pp. 1441-1442.) When a defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, the plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Coulston v. Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868.) “A court lacks jurisdiction over a party if there has not been proper service of process.” (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.)

Specially-appearing Defendant Air Venezia moves to quash service of the summons and complaint. Defendant contends it was never validly served by personal service, as is reflected in the Proof of Service filed with the court

The Proof of Service filed on August 16, 2024, reflects personal service on Defendants Air Venezia and Michelle Levix. (See 08/16/2024 Proof of Service of Summons.) The summons and complaint were served by Thomas W. Kielty—Plaintiff’s counsel—at 1050 Frederick St. Venice, CA 90291. (Id.) The documents were left with Jessica Bosch, identified as an “office employee.” (Id.)

(a) To the person designated as agent for service of process as provided by any provision in Section 202, 1502, 2105, or 2107 of the Corporations Code (or Sections 3301 to 3303, inclusive, or Sections 6500 to 6504, inclusive, of the Corporations Code, as in effect on December 31, 1976, with respect to corporations to which they remain applicable).

(b) To the president, chief executive officer, or other head of the corporation, a vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or chief financial officer, a general manager, or a person authorized by the corporation to receive service of process.

(d) If authorized by any provision in Section 1701, 1702, 2110, or 2111 of the Corporations Code (or Sections 3301 to 3303, inclusive, or Sections 6500 to 6504, inclusive, of the Corporations Code, as in effect on December 31, 1976, with respect to corporations to which they remain applicable), as provided by that provision.

Defendant contends that Jessica Bosch is not an agent for process of service or person otherwise authorized to accept service on its behalf. Defendant includes a declaration from Bosch, who attests that “a man approached [her] and asked [her] if ‘Chase’, who is the Community Manager was in.” (Bosch Decl. ¶ 3.) When Bosch told him that Chase was out of the office, the “man handed [her] a stack of papers and asked [her] to give it to Chase.” (Id.) Bosch “was not told by this man what the papers were, or that anyone was being served with legal papers.” (Id.) Bosch attests that she is not authorized to accept legal service on Defendant’s behalf. (Id. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. (See Coulston v. Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868 [plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service”].) On the evidence presented—and without any opposition—there is nothing to suggest that Bosch was authorized to accept service on Defendant’s behalf. Therefore, service was ineffective on Defendant.