Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV03565, Date: 2025-01-24 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 24PSCV03565    Hearing Date: January 24, 2025    Dept: G

Defendant Mark Fawzi Hassan’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Andrew C. Lujan

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Mark Fawzi Hassan’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is an unlawful detainer action. In April 2018, Defendant Mark Fawzi Hassan agreed to lease property in Walnut from Plaintiff Andrew C. Lujan, trustee of the Andrew & Linda Family Trust Dated Feb. 2, 2011. On October 7, 2024, Hassan allegedly failed to comply with a three day notice to quit or pay rent by Lujan. At the time of the notice, Hassan allegedly owed $54,000.00 in rent.

On October 23, 2024, Lujan filed a complaint against Hassan and Does 1-10 for unlawful detainer.

On October 30, 2024, Hassan filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for January 24, 2025, along with a CMC and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service on March 24, 2025.

ANALYSIS

Hassan moves to quash Lujan’s service of summons on the grounds that the service was improper. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Hassan’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 this case, Hassan has provided a declaration stating Hassan has not been personally served with the summons and Complaint in this action. (Hassan Decl., ¶ 2.) Instead, Hassan states a copy of the summons and Complaint were apparently dropped off at the Walnut property in the presence of another employee. (Hassan Decl., ¶ 3.) But while such service would not constitute personal service, an individual may also be properly served with substitute service pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b).

In a proof of service filed on December 3, 2024, at 2:55 PM, Lujan’s process server states they served a Lorena Doe as the person in charge of Hassan’s business address at 22064 Valley Boulevard in Walnut on October 31, 2024. On that same day, they also mailed copies of the summons and Complaint to the Walnut address. Prior to effecting substitute service, Lujan’s process server attempted to serve Hassan at the Walnut address on three different occasions including October 25, October 27, and October 29.

As such, the court  finds this proof of service adequately establishes Hassan was properly served with substitute service. Hassan failed to provide the court with any evidence that rebuts this presumption of valid service. Accordingly, the court DENIES Hassan’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Hassan’s motion to quash Lujan’s service of summons is DENIED.  Defendant is ordered to file a responsive pleading in ten (10) days.