Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 22STCV13723 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV13723, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13723 Hearing Date: May 3, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion for an order to serve Defendant with the summons and complaint via the California Secretary of State pursuant to Corporations Code § 17701.16(c) is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

Corporations Code § 17701.16(c), provides:

If an agent for service of process has resigned and has not been replaced or if the designated agent cannot with reasonable diligence be found at the address designated for personal delivery of the process, and it is shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court that process against a limited liability company or foreign limited liability company cannot be served with reasonable diligence upon the designated agent by hand in the manner provided in Section 415.10, subdivision (a) of Section 415.20, or subdivision (a) of Section 415.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may make an order that the service shall be made upon a domestic limited liability company or upon a registered foreign limited liability company by delivering by hand to the Secretary of State, or to any person employed in the Secretary of State's office in the capacity of assistant or deputy, one copy of the process for each defendant to be served, together with a copy of the order authorizing the service. Service in this manner shall be deemed complete on the 10th day after delivery of the process to the Secretary of State.

(Corp. Code § 17701.16(c).)

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks an order directing service of process of the Summons, Complaint, and related documents on Defendant JNJ Investments, LLC through the California Secretary of State pursuant to Corporations Code Section 17701.16(c). Plaintiff argues Defendant cannot, with reasonable diligence, be located and served in any other manner specified in Code of Civil Procedure Sections 415.10, 415.20(a) or 415.30(a).

According to the Secretary of State Statement of Information form (form LLC-12), filed with the California Secretary of State on February 11, 2019, the business address for Defendant is listed as 1111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 520, Los Angeles, CA 90025, and the designated agent for service of process for Defendant is listed as Joseph Ramani at the same address. In addition, according to the Secretary of State Statement of No Change form (form LLC-12NC), filed with the California Secretary of State filed on February 24, 2021, "[t]here has been no change in any of the information contained in the previous complete Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State." [No change in the address of the agent for service of process or appointment of a new agent for service of process shall be effective until an amendment to the statement described in Corporations Code Section 17701.14 is filed.] According to the Secretary of State website, Defendant has not filed any subsequent forms.

Plaintiff submitted evidence showing Defendant, a limited liability company, cannot be served with reasonable diligence upon the designated agent for service of process in the manner provided in C.C.P. §§415.10 (personal service), 415.20 (substitute service), and 415.30 (service by mail). Defendant’s agent for service of process is Joseph Ramani. The address for service for the agent is 1111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 520, Los Angeles, California (according to the Secretary of State’s website). Plaintiff’s process server attempted to serve Defendant three times between June 6, 2022, and June 10, 2022. The process server was unable to serve the agent because the security guard did not grant access to the agent’s suite. (Alba Decl., ¶ 3(a); Deputy Avila Decl. of due diligence.) The security guard neither knew the agent nor the LLC, and neither the LLC nor the agent were listed. (Deputy Avila Decl. of due diligence.) Further, there was no answer at the number listed, and per security, they work remotely. (Id.)

As to mail with acknowledgment of receipt, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that he mailed a notice and acknowledgment and receipt to Defendant pursuant to CCP § 410.30(a) on August 31, 2022 and has not received the acknowledgment and receipt. (Marchiondo Decl. ¶ 9.) Thus, Plaintiff has also satisfied his burden to show that Defendant could not be served with reasonable diligence by mail with acknowledgment and receipt.

Further, Plaintiff’s counsel also made multiple attempts to serve the agent for service at other personal addresses that were developed through investigative processes but service there was also unsuccessful. (Id., ¶ 8; Alba Decl., ¶ 3.)

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an order to serve Defendant with the summons and complaint via the California Secretary of State pursuant to Corporations Code § 17701.16(c) is GRANTED.