Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2023-01328986, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Kenneth H. An (“Defendant”) moves to quash service of summons on the grounds that Plaintiff Keum Sook Shin’s (“Plaintiff”) purported service on him was not made according to any of the statutorily authorized methods.  Defendant contends that the summons served by Plaintiff does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 412.20 and the proof of service filed by Plaintiff falsely indicates that Defendant was personally served.

Section 418.10(a)(1) authorizes a defendant to file and serve a notice of motion to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.  When a defendant challenges that jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.”  (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-1440.) 

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 412.20(a), a summons must be signed by the clerk and issued under the seal of the court in which the action is pending.  Here, the summons served by Plaintiff contains no signature by the clerk and no court seal.  (Declaration of Sallie Sohee An, Ex. A.)  Further, it was purportedly served on May 24, 2023.  (Id. ¶ 5.)  However, the summons signed by the clerk was not issued and filed until June 29, 2023.  (ROA 21.)  Plaintiff’s Complaint was not filed until May 31, 2023, several days after the purported service of summons.  (ROA 2.)  Thus, the summons that was served by Plaintiff is defective.

Further, the proof of service filed by Plaintiff contains false information.  It asserts that Defendant was personally served on May 24, 2023, but it was Sallie Sohee An who was served on May 24.  (ROA 4; Sallie An Decl., ¶ 5.)  Defendant avers that he was not personally served.  (Declaration of Kenneth H. An, ¶ 3.)  While substituted service may be made if personal service cannot be completed after reasonable diligence (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20(b)), there is no evidence of any reasonable diligence here.  Thus, the service performed on May 24, 2023 is ineffective. 

In light of the above, Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Quash is GRANTED.

Defendant to give notice.