Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV17526, Date: 2023-11-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17526    Hearing Date: January 26, 2024    Dept: 39

Sadie Pickering v. 7520 S. Broadway, LLC, et al.

Case No. 23STCV17526

Motion to Quash

            Plaintiff Sadie Pickering (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against 7520 S. Broadway, LLC (“Defendant”) asserting causes of action for premises liability, negligence, breach of written contract, and nuisance.  Defendant previously moved to quash service of the summons and complaint.  A party may serve an entity via its designated agent for service of process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 416.10, subd. (b); see also Corps. Code, § 17701.13, subd. (a)(2).)  Plaintiff filed a proof of service from a registered process server stating that he served Defendant’s agent for service of process: “Ritesh Desai (female).”  (See Proof of Service, filed on September 21, 2023.)  As Plaintiff effectuated service via a registered process server, Plaintiff’s service is entitled to a presumption of validity.  Defendants is therefore “required to produce evidence that [they were] not served.”  (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390.)   Defendant does not dispute that Ritesh Desai is the agent for service of process.  Rather, Defendant argues that the proof of service necessarily is incorrect because Ritesh Desai is a male, and not “female,” as indicated on the proof of service.  Defendant relies on a declaration from Ritesh Desai stating that he was never served and is, in fact, male.  (Declaration of Ritesh Desai, ¶¶ 3-4.)  Plaintiff filed an amended proof of service stating instead that he served the receptionist, Jane Doe.  (See Proof of Service, filed on October 24, 2023.)  Because she is not the agent for service of process, at best, this constitutes substituted service.  However, Plaintiff did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, which required Plaintiff to mail copies of the summons and complaint to Defendant.  Therefore, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to afford Plaintiff sufficient time to complete service.  Plaintiff filed a declaration confirming that the summons and complaint were mailed to Ritesh Desai on November 27, 2023.  Defendant filed an answer and cross-complaint.  Therefore, the motion to quash is denied as moot.

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Defendant’s motion to quash is denied as moot.

            2.         The Court sets the following dates:

                        Post-Mediation Status Conference:                January 2, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.

                        Final Status Conference:                                May 2, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.

                        Trial:                                                               May 13, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.

            3.         Defendant shall post jury fees within ten (10) days or else Defendant shall waive jury.

            4.         The Court orders the parties to comply with all pretrial procedures for Department #39.  The parties shall prepare and file joint trial documents on or before April 25, 2025.  The parties shall identify all witnesses they intend to call in their respective cases-in-chief, and identify and produce all exhibits they intend to introduce in their respective cases-in-chief, on or before April 25, 2025. 

            5.         The Court orders the parties to participate in a mediation per their stipulation in the case management statements.  If the parties would like to participate in the Resolve Law LA program for personal injury cases, they may file a stipulation and proposed order. 

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