Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV24690, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 

IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 

ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 19STCV24690    Hearing Date: October 28, 2022    Dept: 29

Kourosh Mousieh v. Lucas Adam Aronson, et al.

Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint filed by Specially Appearing Defendant Lucas Aronson

TENTATIVE

Specially Appearing Defendant Lucas Aronson’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

Legal Standard 

“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, 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(a).)  A defendant has 30 days after the service of the summons to file a responsive pleading.  (Id. § 412.20(a)(3).)  “Failure to make a motion under this section at the time of filing a demurrer or motion to strike constitutes a waiver of the issues of lack of personal jurisdiction, inadequacy of process, inadequacy of service of process, inconvenient forum, and delay in prosecution.”  (Id. § 418.10(e)(3).)

“[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 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.”  (See Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.) 

Discussion 

Specially Appearing Defendant (“Defendant”) moves to quash service of summons and complaint, arguing that substituted service was defective because Defendant Lucas Aronson lives in Israel.

Plaintiff filed a proof of service indicating that on March 10, 2022, he served the Summons and Complaint on Defendant Lucas at “StringKing,” 19100 S. Vermont Ave., in Gardena, CA 90248-4413 by leaving a copy of the Complaint with Jake McCampbell – Manager/Authorized to Accept Service of Process. (Chapovsky Decl., ¶ 4.)

Defendant contends Plaintiff’s service is improper pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b), which provides “a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, or usual mailing address. . . in the presence of a competent member of the household . . . at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the 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.”  Defendant argues service was improper, and should therefore be quashed, because Defendant, Lucas Arson, resides permanently in Israel and has done so since June of 2019. (Declaration of Defendant Brian Aronson ¶ 3.) The business entity identified as “StringKing” is or was co-founded by an individual known as Luke Aronson. However, the Luke Aronson from “StringKing” is not the same person as Defendant Lucas Aronson named in Plaintiff’s operative complaint and merely shares a similar name. (Chapovsky Decl. ¶ 5; Brian Aronson Decl. ¶ 5.)

As such, Defendant has presented sufficient evidence to show that the substituted service was defective as Lucas Aronson lives in Israel and is not connected to Luke Aronson of “StringKing,” where substituted service was effected.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition and has thus failed to show that the substituted service was valid. 

Conclusion

Accordingly, Specially Appearing Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.