Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 22STCV39979, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 19 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
If you desire to submit on a tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 19 before 08:00 a.m. on the day of the motion hearing. The e-mail address for submitting is SMCDept19@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail must contain the case name and number, and that you submit. For example, "Smith v. Jones BC551124, submit". The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent.
PLEASE NOTE, The above e-mail address is only to inform the Court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries or correspondence will not receive a response.
Case Number: 22STCV39979 Hearing Date: November 13, 2024 Dept: 19
After full consideration of the briefing filed and oral argument at the hearing, Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (sued as Facebook, Inc.)’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.
The Court signs the proposed order filed on May 3, 2024.
Counsel for Moving Defendant to give notice.
This action arises out of alleged
business torts. Plaintiff Richard Chamberlin (“Plaintiff”) brings suit against
Defendants Facebook, Inc.; The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, Inc.;
International Fact-Checking Network; Science Feedback; Lead Stories, LLC; and
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging the
following causes of action:
1.
Defamation;
2.
False
Light Invasion of Privacy;
3.
Fraud
in the Inducement;
4.
Conspiracy;
5.
Tortious
Interference with Contract;
6.
Tortious
Interference with Prospective Business Relations;
7.
Violation
of Cartwright Act;
8.
Unruh
Civil Rights Violations;
9.
Unfair
Competition;
10.
Breach
of Contract; and
11. Request for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary & Permanent Injunction.
Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (sued as Facebook, Inc.) (hereafter, “Moving Defendant”) filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons (the “Motion”).
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, Moving Defendant moves for an order quashing service of the summons on the ground that Plaintiff failed to properly effectuate such service on it.
As
an initial matter, Plaintiff failed to oppose the Motion, effectively
consenting to the Court granting it. (See Cal. R. Ct., 8.54(c) [“A
failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the
motion.”]; Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)
“A defendant… may 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 court lacks jurisdiction over a party if there has not been proper service of process. (Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808; Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444 [“[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction….”].)
“When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process ‘the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413 (quoting Dill, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at 1439–1440); accord, Aquila, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 568 [“When a motion to quash is properly brought, the burden of proof is placed upon the plaintiff to establish the facts of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.”].) Thus, when a defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint due to insufficient service of process, 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.)
“In deciding whether service was valid, the statutory provisions regarding service of process ‘should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by the defendant….’” (Dill, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at 1436–1437 (quoting Pasadena Medi-Center Associates v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 773, 778) (internal quotations omitted); see Summers, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at 411 (citing Pasadena Medi-Center Associates, supra, 9 Cal.3d at 778-779) [“It is clear from our Supreme Court's opinion in Pasadena Medi–Center the old rule of strict construction has been rejected and a new rule of liberal construction has been adopted.”].) “Thus, substantial compliance is sufficient.” (Id. at 1437.) “[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; accord, Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) “For instance, when the defendant is an individual, that individual is the person to be served, and evidence that the mailed summons actually reached that individual is sufficient to establish valid service, even though the summons had been signed for by someone who did not have authority to do so.” (Id. at 1437.) If the defendant is a corporation, a plaintiff can be found to have substantially complied with the statutory provisions regarding service of process if the summons was “actually received by one of the persons to be served” pursuant to the statutory provisions regarding service of process of a corporation. (Id.; see Code Civ. Proc., § 416.10 [statutory provisions regarding service of process of certain entities including a corporation].
The Court finds that the instant Motion was properly brought. Moving Defendant has not previously appeared in the matter. The Proof of Service of Summons filed on April 9, 2024, asserts that service of the Summons and Complaint was effectuated on April 3, 2024 by way of personal service, and therefore the instant Motion, which was filed on May 3, 2024, was filed on the last day for Moving Defendant to plead. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 412.20(a)(3).)
Therefore, the burden of proof is placed on Plaintiff to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proper service of summons was effectuated.
Plaintiff failed to file any opposition papers, including any evidence, and therefore fails to meet his burden establishing facts of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
Moreover, the Proof of Service of Summons for Moving Defendant, filed on April 9, 2024, indicates that service was effectuated on Moving Defendant by way of personally delivering a copy of the Summons and Complaint on “Nadra San -Security Lead.” Yet, Moving Defendant provides evidence indicating that Nadra San, a “contingent worker of Meta’s global security team,” and is not one of the enumerated individuals in Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10 that may be properly served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint. (Jennifer Pricer Decl., ¶¶ 3-4; see Dill, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at 1437 [“a corporate defendant can only be served through service on some individual person” specified in section 416.10, and it must appear that the person served is in fact a person who may be served on behalf of the corporation].)
Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED.
Moving Defendant to give notice.