Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV24722, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24722    Hearing Date: February 28, 2023    Dept: 39

Traceena Pennix v. Brian David Ross, et al.

Case No. 21STCV24722

Motion to Quash

            Plaintiff Traceena Pennix (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Bahram Rahrovi, erroneously sued as “Brian David Ross” (“Defendant”), among others, on July 6, 2021, for breach of the warranty of habitability, among other causes of action.  Plaintiff effected substitute service against Defendant, care of Shahi Rahrovi, at 5424 Las Virgenes Road in Calabasas, California 91302.  Plaintiff used a registered process server.  Now, Defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint.

“When a defendant challenges . . . jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving . . . the facts requisite to an effective service.”  (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-40.)  Because Plaintiff used a registered process server, there is a presumption of the facts stated in the return.  (Evid. Code, § 647.) 

  Defendant states in his declaration and he and his wife, Ladan Boloorian, reside at 5424 Las Virgenes Road in Calabasas, California 91032, and that no one else resides at that address.  Defendant states in his declaration that he does not know Shahi Rahrovi.  The Court finds that Defendant’s declaration is not credible, and credits the declarations of two different registered process servers suggesting that Defendant was evading service.  Defendant admits that he lives at the service address.  Two different registered process servers attempted to serve Defendant a total of nine times during different times of the day and night, to no avail.  Defendant does not explain why no one answered the door of his residence between 7:00 a.m. (the earliest attempt) and 8:50 p.m. (the latest attempt).  Nor does Defendant explain how he learned about this litigation if not for the service of the summons and complaint.  Defendant was served on October 13, 2022, and this motion was filed approximately 30 days later, suggesting that, in fact, he was served at home.  The Court finds that two different process servers have no motive to falsify their declarations, but Defendant has a motive to evade service.  Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant’s declaration is not credible. 

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.                  Defendant’s motion quash is denied.

2.                  Defendant shall file an answer within thirty (30) days.

3.                  Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.