Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV02210, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV02210    Hearing Date: November 28, 2023    Dept: G

Defendant Shun Zhou’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Respondent: Plaintiffs Shenzhen YH South China Logistic Co Ltd and Hongkong YH Global Logistics CS Co. Ltd.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Shun Zhou’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is DENIED.  Defendant Shun Zhou to file a responsive pleading within thirty (30) days.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of contract and fraud. Plaintiff Shenzhen YH South China Logistic Co Ltd (Shenzhen YH) is the parent company for Plaintiff Hongkong YH Global Logistics CS Co. Ltd. (Hongkong YH) and both are foreign logistics businesses with a presence in Asia and China.

In 2021, Shenzhen YH and Hongkong YH sought to expand their presence to the United States. In June 2021, Shenzhen YH entered into an agreement with Defendant Shun Zhou in which Zhou agreed to provide consulting services for Shenzhen YH’s expansion. Zhou then advised Shenzhen YH to form a California entity that Zhou would operate. In July 2021, Zhou formed and incorporated Defendant Clift Global Supply Chain (Clift Global) on Shenzhen YH’s behalf with Shenzhen YH owning Clift Global through a subsidiary. In the following months, Shenzhen YH sent a total of $1,000,000 to Clift Global through Hongkong YH.

In October 2021, on behalf of Clift Global, Zhou entered into a lease agreement for a Fontana warehouse with Defendant BUFU Investment, Inc. (BUFU) through Defendant Enmei Hou. After Clift Global paid BUFU a $525,000 deposit, BUFU allegedly failed to deliver possession of the warehouse to Clift Global. Subsequently, Shenzhen YH and Hongkong YH allegedly learned BUFU was not the actual owner of the Fontana warehouse and instead was merely a tenant facing a notice to vacate. Shenzhen YH and Hongkong YH also allege Zhou was acting in concert with the other defendants.

On July 21, 2023, Shenzhen YH and Hongkong YH filed a complaint against Zhou, Clift Global, Hou, BUFU, and Does 1-50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of fiduciary duties, (2) negligence, (3) conversion, (4) fraud, (5) conspiracy, and (6) breach of contract. On August 3, Shenzhen YH and Hongkong YH’s process server served Zhou in El Monte through substitute service.

On October 13, 2023, Zhou filed the present motion. A hearing on Zhou’s motion is set for November 28 along with a case management conference and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service on December 13.

ANALYSIS

Zhou moves to quash Shenzhen YH and Hongkong YH’s service of summons on the grounds that the service was improper. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Zhou’s motion.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, “[a] defendant, on or before the last day of [their] time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion . . . [t]o quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over [them].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) “When a defendant argues that service of summons did not bring [them] 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.’” (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 387.) The filing of a proof of service declaration ordinarily creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper, but only if the service declaration complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.” (Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163 [internal quotations omitted].)

Discussion

In moving to quash the service of process, Zhou provides a declaration stating the El Monte property was not Zhou’s residence. (Zhou Decl.) But service of process may also be undertaken at a person’s place of business or mailing address. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (a).) Here, Zhou fails to state that the El Monte property is not Zhou’s place of business. While Zhou admits the El Monte property previously served as the address for Clift Global, Zhou claims Clift Global was terminated in November 2022. (Zhou Decl.) But Zhou continues to list the El Monte property as Zhou’s place of business and address for another entity named Donewin Inc. (Altagen Decl., Ex. B.) Thus, the court finds Zhou has been properly served.

To the extent Zhou also seeks to quash the service of summons on Clift Global, the court finds Zhou has no standing to do so as a corporation may only be represented in court by an attorney. (Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 199 [“A corporation cannot represent itself in court, either in propria persona or through an officer or agent who is not an attorney.”].)

Accordingly, Zhou’s motion is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Zhou’s motion to quash service is DENIED.  Defendant Zhou to file a responsive pleading within thirty (30) days.