Judge Robert S. Draper, Case 23STCV06098 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Defendant. Case No.: 23STCV06098

Hearing Date: May 8, 2023

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

DEFENDANT YOUNG HYO KIM’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT.

Defendant Young Hyo Kim’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is DENIED.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve a written notice of entry of the order denying the motion pursuant to CCP Section 1167.4(b) within one day and is to file proof of service of such written notice within five court days after the date of this order.

Defendant is ordered to file and serve his answer within five days after service of the written notice referenced above.

This is an action for unlawful detainer. The Complaint alleges as follows.

Plaintiff Hyun Sook Lee (“Plaintiff”) owns real property located at 3223 W. 6th St., Los Angeles, CA 90020. (Compl. at p. 1.) Defendant Young Hyo Kim (“Kim”) agreed to rent a unit in the subject property for $3,800.00 a month. (Ibid.) Kim’s tenancy was terminated for cause. (Compl. at p. 2.) Plaintiff personally served Kim with a copy of the 3-day notice to pay rent or quit on March 14, 2023. (Ibid.) Kim currently owes past due rent in the amount of $45,600.00. (Compl. at p. 4.)

On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Complaint for Unlawful Detainer.

On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Notice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction).

On March 28, 2023, Kim filed a Demurrer to the Complaint.

On April 26, 2023, Kim filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint.

On April 27, 2023, the Court overruled Kim’s Demurrer to the Complaint.

On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the instant motion.

As of May 3, 2023, no Reply has been filed.

I. MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Kim moves to quash service of the summons and Complaint.

“A defendant . . . 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).) “[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.)

Kim makes three arguments as to why service of the summons and complaint should be quashed.

A. Failure to Personally Serve

First, Kim alleges that Plaintiff failed to personally serve Kim with the Summons and Complaint, instead serving Kim via first class mail contrary to California law.

However, the Proof of Service filed on April 26, 2023, shows that Kim was personally served with the Summons, Complaint, UD-101, and Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession on March 20, 2023.

The Proof of Service is completed by a registered process server, thereby creating a rebuttable presumption of validity of service.

As Kim provides no admissible evidence showing that process was not properly served, Kim fails to overcome this burden.

Accordingly, Kim’s motion is denied on this ground.

B. 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit

Next, Kim alleges that Plaintiff failed to furnish the Court with a copy of the 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit. This is the same basis on which Kim’s Demurrer to the Complaint was overruled.

As the Court noted then, a copy of the 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit was attached to the Complaint (Exh. 2) along with a Proof of Service of that document. (Exh. 3.)

Accordingly, Kim’s motion is denied on this ground.

C. Missing Documents

Finally, Kim alleges that Plaintiff failed to serve copies of the mandatory coversheet, the landlord’s rental assistance verification, the civil case coversheet, or the addendum and statement of location on Kim.

First, Kim fails to provide any authority stating that failure to serve these documents renders a Court without jurisdiction of a defendant.

Second, Plaintiff submits the declaration of registered process server Angelica Vasquez attesting that she served Kim with all necessary attachments. (Vasquez Decl. ¶ 2.)

Kim submits no admissible evidence demonstrating Plaintiff’s failure to serve the aforementioned documents.

Accordingly, Kim’s motion is denied on this ground.

Defendant Young Hyo Kim’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED.

___________________________

Judge of the Superior Court