Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV06635, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV06635    Hearing Date: January 14, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Specially appearing defendant Yongbin Luo

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion to Quash Service of Summons and First Amended Complaint

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

DISCUSSION

Specially appearing defendant Yongbin Luo (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order quashing service of the summons and First Amended Complaint in this action, filed by plaintiff Water Flower Apparel, Inc. (“Plaintiff”).[1]

“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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §¿418.10, subd. (a)(1).)  “[A] motion to quash under section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1) is a limited procedural tool to contest personal jurisdiction over the defendant where the statutory requirements for service of process are not fulfilled.”  (Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 390.)  

The court finds that Plaintiff has not met its burden to prove the facts requisite to service of the summons and First Amended Complaint on Defendant.  (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 387 [“When a defendant argues that service of summons did not bring him or her within the trial court’s jurisdiction, the plaintiff has ‘the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service’”].)

Plaintiff filed this action on March 18, 2024, alleging against Defendant the second cause of action under the Voidable Transactions Act.  (Compl., ¶¶ 46-56.)  On July 1, 2024, the court issued an “Order for Publication,” ordering that service of the summons and complaint in this action shall be made upon Defendant by publication in the Los Angeles Daily Journal at least once a week for four successive weeks.  (July 1, 2024 Order for Pub., p. 1.)  Pursuant to the court’s Order for Publication, on August 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Proof of Publication,” in which the principal clerk of the publisher Los Angeles Daily Journal stated that the notice attached thereto, directed to Defendant, was published on July 11, 2024, July 18, 2024, July 25, 2024, and August 1, 2024.  (Aug. 1, 2024 Proof of Publication.)  However, during that time, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint, in which Plaintiff alleges against Defendant the second cause of action under the Voidable Transactions Act, fourth cause of action for unjust enrichment, and fifth cause of action for constructive fraud.  (FAC ¶¶ 48-58 [second cause of action], 68-72 [fourth cause of action], 73-79 [fifth cause of action].)  

Thus, the court finds that Defendant has met their burden to challenge service of the summons on the ground that service was not valid because, before service by publication was completed, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which superseded the original summons and Complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.50, subd. (c) [service of summons is complete as provided in Government Code section 6064]; Gov. Code, § 6064 [“Publication of notice pursuant to this section shall be once a week for four successive weeks”]; Malear v. State (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 213, [“an amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints”] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].)

The court finds that Plaintiff has not met its burden to prove that service on Defendant was valid and proper because Plaintiff did not file an opposition to this motion.  (American Express Centurion Bank, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 387.)

The court therefore grants Defendant’s motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a).)

ORDER

            The court grants specially appearing defendant Yongbin Luo’s motion to quash service of summons.

            The court orders that service of the summons and First Amended Complaint on defendant Yongbin Luo is quashed.

            The court orders specially appearing defendant Yongbin Luo to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 14, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court