Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 22VECV00972, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV00972    Hearing Date: September 19, 2022    Dept: T

            [TENTATIVE] ORDER:  Defendant Law Offices of Jacob Emrani’s Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint is GRANTED.

            Defendants Jacob Emrani, Hayk Yedoyan and Rodrigo Suarez’s Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint is MOOT.

Introduction

Defendant Law Offices of Jacob Emrani (Defendant,) Defendant Jacob Emrani, Defendant Hayk Yedoyan and Defendant Rodrigo Suarez move to quash the service of Plaintiff Scott Newberger’s (Plaintiff) Complaint.

Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal as to Emrani, Yedoyan and Suarez on August 30, 2022.  As to these three individual defendants, the motion to quash is MOOT. 

            Discussion 

            Defendant asserts that service of the summons and complaint is defective because the documents were left outside the door of Defendant’s office.  The proof of service shows that service was made by personal service upon “secretaries” [sic] at the “front desk.”  Persons that are authorized to accept service on behalf of an entity defendant are officers of the corporation  or designated agents for service of process (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 416.10.)  The secretary at the front desk is not a proper person upon whom service may be made.  On this defect alone, service upon Defendant is defective and the Court lacks jurisdiction over Defendant.  The motion is merited.

            Plaintiff argues that the motion untimely set the matter for hearing.  However, Defendant provides that the hearing date was the first available on the Court’s reservation system.  Because of the Court’s calendar being impacted, Defendant has provided good cause to hear the matter beyond the 30 day time limit.

            Plaintiff’s arguments as to the merits or substance of the Complaint are not considered.

            Plaintiff argues that service was proper in that the documents were handed to Defendant’s assistant.  However, Plaintiff’s contention as to how the documents were served upon Defendant are not found in the proof of service filed with the Court nor are they found in any evidence submitted with the Opposition.  The person serving the documents, as seen on the proof of service filed with the Court is Veronica Gomez Menchaca.  Ms. Menchaca did not submit any declaration with Plaintiff’s Opposition.  Plaintiff’s contention on how service was performed is unsupported and not found to be persuasive. 

            Plaintiff also argues that the documents were mailed on July 14, 2022 and August 17, 2022.  Preliminarily, it is unclear why documents would need to be mailed when the proof of service alleges that the manner of service was personal.  The proof of service filed with the Court does not assert that the manner of service was substitute.  Mailing of the documents is inconsequential because Plaintiff claims to have effectuated service via personal service.

            Issues raised as to Defendant Rodrigo Suarez being outside the United States is of no consequence because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Mr. Suarez.

            Defendant Law Offices of Jacob Emrani’s motion to quash service of the summons and complaint is GRANTED. 

            IT IS SO ORDERED, ____________________ TO GIVE NOTICE.