Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 22TRCV01267, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01267, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01267 Hearing Date: May 2, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: May 2, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV01267

CASE NAME: Anthony Hall v. Creative 1 Works, et al.

¿ ¿

MOVING PARTY: Specially Appearing Defendant, Chris Brown

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, in pro per, Anthony Hall

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Quash Service

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED. The evidence before the Court fails to show that Chris Brown has been properly served with the lawsuit papers. Delivery of suit papers to a lawyer who does transactional legal work for Mr. Brown is not sufficient on the record presented here.

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

¿¿

On November 17, 2022, Plaintiff, Anthony Hall filed, in pro per, a Complaint against Defendants, Creative 1 Works, Amani Walker, Roberto Appling, Robert White, Robert Daniels, Freddie Rome, and DOES 1 through 20. On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. On July 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”)which has the following Defendants listed: Creative 1 Works, LLC, Right Now Productions, LLC, Estate of Richard Lawrence Grobel, Brett M. Rubin, Aaron Joseph Bolden aka Imani Walker, Rober White, Robert Appling, Derek Bolden, Robert Daniels, Freddie D. Rhone, Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke, Aubry Drake Grham aka Drake, Bruno Mars, Chris Brown, Justin Bieber, Ahmad Balshe aka Belly, and DOES 1 through 20.

The 4AC alleges causes of action for: (1) Fraud – Intentional Misrepresentation; (2) Negligent Misrepresentation; (3) Breach of Contract; and (4) Tort of Another.

Specially Appearing Defendant, Chris Brown, now seeks to quash Service of Summons and the Complaint.

B. Procedural

On March 19, 2024, Specially Appearing Defendant, Chris Brown, filed this Motion to Quash. On April 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On April 4, 2024, Specially Appearing Defendant, Chris Brown, filed a reply brief.

II. ANALYSIS ¿

A. Legal Standard

“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.) A proof of service containing a declaration from a registered process server invokes a presumption of valid service. (See¿American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara¿(2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390; see also Evid. Code § 647.) This presumption is rebuttable. (See¿id.) The party seeking to defeat service of process must present sufficient evidence to show that the service did not take place as stated. (See Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar¿(2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1428; cf.¿People v. Chavez¿(1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1471, 1483 [“If some fact be presumed, the opponent of that fact bears the burden of producing or going forward with evidence sufficient to overcome or rebut the presumed fact.”].) Merely denying service took place without more is insufficient to overcome the presumption. (See¿Yadegar, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at 1428.)

B. Discussion

Specially Appearing Party, Chris Brown (“Brown”) moves on the grounds that he argues this Court should quash Plaintiff’s service on Brown as it was facially defective and the proof of service shows that Plaintiff failed to satisfy the stringent procedural requirements for substitute service upon an individual. Specifically, Brown argues that Plaintiff’s attempted substitute service was ineffective for the following two reasons: (1) the proof of service Plaintiff filed on behalf of Brown fails to demonstrate reasonable diligence, and Plaintiff did not attach a declaration of diligence stating the actions taken to first attempt personal service or put forth any other evidence of efforts to first effect personal service directly on Brown; and (2) Matthew Kamen is not Brown’s registered agent for service, and is merely a transactional attorney that has handled matters for Brown. (Declaration of Matthew Kamen (“Kamen Decl.”), ¶¶ 3-4.)

Here, the proof of service filed by Plaintiff on February 15, 2024 purports to show that Defendant Brown was served via substituted service on December 1, 2023. The service of summons further notes that it was mailed to an address outside of California with return receipt requested. The return receipt appears to show a signature by one Sofia Olsom, but it has no date.

Service by mail to a person outside of California is permitted by Code of Civil Procedure section 415.40. Section 415.40 provides,

“A summons may be served on a person outside this state in any manner provided by this article or by sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, requiring a return receipt. Service of a summons by this form of mail is deemed complete on the 10th day after such mailing.”

Service by mail under Section 415.40 requires that the proof of service include “evidence satisfactory to the court establishing actual delivery to the person to be served, by a signed receipt or other evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 417.20, subd. (a).) Service by mail outside of California on a nonresident requires strict compliance. (Bolkiah v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 984, 1000.) Here, the Plaintiff’s proof of service as to Defendant Chris Brown is signed by Reggie Varnado together with a certified mail receipt dated November 21, 2023 and an undated signature on the green return receipt bearing the name of Sofia Olsom, for an envelope addressed to Matthew Kamen. Mr. Kamen in turn filed a declaration in support of the motion to quash indicating he is not Chris Brown’s registered agent for service but conceding that he is a lawyer in New York who handles transactional matters for Mr. Brown.

Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20 governs the service of process in lieu of personal delivery. Section 415.20(a) states: “[i]n lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served…a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address, other than a United States Postal Service post office box, with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415(a).) Under California law, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that he or she demonstrated reasonable diligence at direct service before substitute service is permitted. (Falco v. Nissan North America Inc.(2013) 987 F.Supp.3d 1071.)

In lieu of filing an opposition brief, Plaintiff has filed a “Responsive Declaration” noting that he has had some problems serving some defendants because of lack of proper addresses. He notes that he was also unable to find a registered agent for service through the Secretary of State’s website for Defendant Brown. Plaintiff’s declaration also states he was able to find an address for Chris Brown through the internet and hired the Sherriff’s Department in New York to serve the summons and complaint on the person shown on his Internet search to be Defendant Brown’s agent. His declaration attaches a Sheriff’s Certificate of Attempted Service showing that a New York Deputy Sheriff attempted service on Chris Brown, and that the Deputy contacted attorney Matthew Kamen who advised service of process for Chris Brown was not being accepted at the 57^th Street address in New York City for Kamen’s law firm.

Plaintiff contends that the Sherriff’s Department in New York provided him with Matthew Kamen as the attorney that he should contact regarding the service of the documents. Plaintiff’s declaration further states that his friend, Reggye Varnado contacted the office of Matthew Kamen and was told to send the documents to them for service. Mr. Varnado’s declaration in turn shows that he spoke to Sofia several times about service of legal papers on attorney Kamen, that Sofia told him that “Matt” [Kamen] would accept service of the legal papers, so he mailed them to Mr. Kamen.

The Court finds that it does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant Brown as service was not made in a Code-compliant way. Plaintiff’s “Responsive Declaration” essentially proves this. There is no showing of any effort to serve Chris Brown himself, nor is there any proof of a registered or designated agent for Chris Brown as to whom any effort to serve the lawsuit papers has been made.

Thus, Brown’s Motion to Quash service of summons is GRANTED.