Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV16353, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV16353 Hearing Date: November 6, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendant Mohamed Ali Ahmad Obaidallah and Ali Ahamad Obaidallah’s Motion to
Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.
Background
On April 30, 2021, Plaintiff Abbas Alugla
(Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Mohamed
Ali Ahmad Obaidallah, Ali Ahamad Obaidallah (Defendants), and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, alleging a cause of action for negligence. The complaint asserts
that on or about May 10, 2019, Defendants negligently drove their vehicle
causing it to collide with Plaintiff’s vehicle resulting in injuries and
damages.
On August 23, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to quash service of
summons. On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On October 30,
2023, Defendants filed a reply.
Legal
Standard
Pursuant the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 418.10, “[a] defendant, on
or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time
that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of
motion…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)(1).)
When a defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, 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.) The plaintiff must establish the facts of jurisdiction by a
preponderance of the evidence. (Aquila,
Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 568.) “When a nonresident
defendant challenges personal jurisdiction the burden shifts to the plaintiff
to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all necessary
jurisdictional criteria are met. [Citation.] This burden must be met by
competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documentary evidence. An
unverified complaint may not be considered as an affidavit supplying necessary
facts.” (Jewish Defense Organization,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1054-55.)
Discussion
Here, Defendant Mohamed Ali Ahmad Obaidallah and Ali Ahamad Obaidallah
(Defendants) move for an order quashing service of the summons. Defendants’
argue that the Court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over them because they
have not been properly served with the summons and complaint by Plaintiff Abbas Alugla’s (Plaintiff).
Pursuant the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 415.10, “A summons may be
served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to
the person to be served. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete
at the time of such delivery. The date upon which personal delivery is made
shall be entered on or affixed to the face of the copy of the summons at the
time of its delivery. However, service of a summons without such date shall be
valid and effective.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10.)
“If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence
be personally delivered to the person to be served, as specified in Section
416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of
the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode,
usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States
Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the
household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of
business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service
post office box, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the
contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the
complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at
the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. Service of a
summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 415.020(b).)
Defendants were purportedly served by substitute service at 2235 West
Falmouth Avenue in Anaheim on July 2, 2023. (Hodges Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. B.) The summons
and complaint were left with a female “Jane Doe.” (Ibid.) Defendants’
assert that they moved from the 2235 West Falmouth Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801
address in 2019. (Obaidallah Decl., ¶ 2.) Furthermore, Defendants’ assert that
at the time Plaintiff attempted
to personally serve the summons and complaint in June 2023 and the alleged
substitute service, Defendant Mohamed Ali Ahmad
Obaidallah was residing and receiving mail at a different rental property in
Anaheim, CA located in zip code 92808, while Defendant Ali Ahamad Obaidallah
has been out the country. (Id. at ¶ 3.)
Defendants’ also assert that Defendant Ali Ahamad Obaidallah will be
returning to the United States to reside with Defendant Mohamed
Ali Ahmad Obaidallah and his family at their current address. (Ibid.)
Moreover, Defendant Mohamed
Ali Ahmad Obaidallah states that he has never been personally served with any
documents related to this lawsuit and only learned about this instant case upon
speaking with his attorney in August 2023. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Additionally,
Defendant Mohamed Ali Ahmad Obaidallah states that he has never seen or received
any documents other than correspondence from his attorney related to this
present action. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
Plaintiff argues that the
location of the Defendants’ for the 2023 service was confirmed by Defendant Mohamed Ali Ahmad Obaidallah’s California Driver’s License that he
produced at the accident scene and by publicly available information obtained
from a search engine called “Fast People Search.” (Flores Decl., lns. 8-16.)
In reply, Defendants argue that the “Fast
People Search” used and relied upon by Plaintiff is a third party people search
engine but it is unclear what data the search engine used to provide that
address. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff have not rebutted Defendants’
evidence or provide any evidence that Defendants lived, worked, or received
mail at the 2235 West Falmouth Avenue address as of the time of service.
After reviewing all of the evidence and
argument, the Court concludes that Defendants’ motion is meritorious and therefore
the Court GRANTS the motion to quash service of summons. Defendants have
provided sufficient evidence that the substituted service is invalid as the
address at which the summons and
complaint were delivered was not the address at which Defendants lived, worked,
or received mail as of the time of service. Plaintiff has not provided
sufficient evidence to the contrary to support the validity of service.
Conclusion
The Court
GRANTS the motion of Defendants Mohamed Ali
Ahmad Obaidallah and Ali Ahamad Obaidallah to quash service.
The Court QUASHES the service of
the summons and complaint.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.