Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV13988, Date: 2024-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13988    Hearing Date: January 22, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 1-22-24 c/f 1-16-24

Case #23STCV13988

Trial Date: Not Set

QUASH

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, ASB Watermarke Owner, LLC, A Delaware Corporation

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Carlos Valdez, pro per

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Quash Service of the Summons

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On September 10, 2022, plaintiff Carlos Valdez moved into an apartment building owned and/or managed by defendants ASB Watermarke Owner, LLC, A Delaware Corporation, with the assistance of a Section 8 voucher. Plaintiff provided a security deposit and a September 10, 2022, was scheduled. Plaintiff maintains Defendant improperly represented Plaintiff’s qualification for the rental via acceptance of the Section 8 certificate, and/or a promise to submit the required paperwork with the relevant compliance agency(ies). According to Plaintiff, both parties maintain the other was responsible for establishing compliance and participation into the Section 8 program. Apparently, no payments were made, and Plaintiff was subsequently residing in an unaffordable unit, thereby leading to an unlawful detainer action (23STUD02401).

On June 16, 2023, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed complaint for Negligent Misrepresentation. On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a first amended complaint for Negligent Misrepresentation, Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress, and Source of Income Discrimination.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant ASB Watermarke Owner, LLC, A Delaware Corporation (ASB), moves to quash service of the summons and complaint on grounds of invalid service. Defendant contends the “UPS mail” to Todd A. Brisco APC, was both never received by Brisco, and Brisco is only counsel on the unlawful detainer cause and not an authorized agent for service of ASB. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

A plaintiff has the initial burden to establish valid statutory service of a summons and complaint. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413; Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-40; Floveyor Internat. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 794.) The proof of service was filed on November 7, 2023, and indicates service on ABS “via UPS mail” on June 17, 2023. The receipt indicates the recipient as Todd Brisco on June 19, 2023. Counsel denies it is an agent for service of the ASB entity. [Declaration of Veronica Guzman.]

Any and all lawfully operating corporations in the State of California must present an agent for service. (Corp. Code, §§ 1502, 1505, 16310.) Service on a corporate entity is required to be completed on the agent for service. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 17701.16.) Plaintiff was required to execute proper service on the proper agent/entity. (Code Civ. Proc., 415.10, et seq.)

The service of process is therefore determined invalid. The unopposed motion is granted.

The court will set further dates at the concurrent Case Management Conference.

Defendant to provide notice.