Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV41542, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV41542    Hearing Date: August 26, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Jeff Bohbot p/k/a Jeff Hamilton

RESPONDING PARTY:        Plaintiff Ryan I. Hester p/k/a Phree

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

The court considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with this motion.  No reply papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Ryan I. Hester, p/k/a Phree (“Plaintiff”), filed this action against defendant Jeff Bohbot, p/k/a Jeff Hamilton (“Defendant”), on November 10, 2021, alleging three causes of action for (1) malicious prosecution, (2) civil rights violations, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Defendant now moves for an order quashing Plaintiff’s service of summons and complaint on the ground that Defendant was not personally served. 

A defendant may serve and file a notice of motion to 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)(1).)  “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, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’”  (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)

The court finds that Plaintiff has met his burden in establishing proper service and therefore denies Defendant’s motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a).)

The Proof of Service filed on January 31, 2022 states that Defendant was personally served, by Elijah Johnson, with the summons and Complaint on January 15, 2022.  (January 31, 2022 Proof of Service (POS-010), ¶¶ 2-3, 5, 7.)  Defendant denies that he was served, contends that the summons and Complaint do not attach a proper Proof of Service, and asserts that any Proof of Service filed with the court must therefore be false.  (See Bohbot Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, 8.)

In support of his opposition, Plaintiff submits his declaration, in which he states the following: (1) Plaintiff attended a charity event on January 15, 2022, and observed that Defendant was also present at the event; (2) Plaintiff asked Elijah Johnson, an acquaintance, if he would be willing to serve Defendant with the Complaint and other papers filed in this action by handing the documents to Defendant and stating that he was being served with Plaintiff’s papers; (3) Elijah Johnson agreed to do so; (4) Plaintiff and Elijah Johnson used a printer in the event’s administrative trailer to print copies of the summons, complaint, civil case cover sheet, notice of case assignment, first amended general order, notice of case management conference, and alternative dispute resolution package; and (5) Plaintiff observed Elijah Johnson hand the envelope containing the documents described above to Defendant while stating that they were “the service papers for [Plainitff’s] lawsuit from [Plaintiff’s] lawyer.”  (Hester Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.)  Plaintiff also submits a frame from a video taken by Plaintiff which “shows [Defendant] holding the same envelope” containing the lawsuit documents.  (Hester Decl., ¶ 6; Hester Decl., Ex. 1.) Defendant has not filed reply papers disputing the facts or evidence set forth in Plaintiff’s declaration.

The court finds that the evidence submitted by Plaintiff is sufficient to prove the facts requisite to effective service.  “A summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10.)  Based on the facts set forth above, the court finds that Plaintiff has met his burden in establishing that Defendant was personally served with the summons and complaint in this action on January 15, 2022, and that service was therefore complete at the time of this delivery.  (Ibid.; Hester Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.)   

ORDER

            The court denies defendant Jeff Bohbot p/k/a Jeff Hamilton’s motion to quash service of summons.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a).)

The court orders plaintiff Ryan Hester p/k/a Phree to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 26, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court