Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV18170, Date: 2024-09-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV18170, Date: 2024-09-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18170 Hearing Date: September 23, 2024 Dept: 29

Krista v. Melas
22STCV18170
Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by Specially Appearing Defendant Matthew Duncan Wilson

TENTATIVE

Motion to Quash is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On June 2, 2022, Maurya Krista (“Plaintiff”), Michael Monson, Aunaleigh Monson, and Richard Monson filed a complaint against Denise Pickering Melas (“Melas”), Matthew Duncan Wilson (“Wilson”), and Does 1 through 50 for negligence arising out of an automobile accident occurring on June 4, 2020.

On August 8, 2023, Melas filed an answer. On the same day, Melas filed a cross-complaint against Wilson.

On December 1, 2023, default was entered against Wilson on Melas’s cross-complaint. On motion filed by Wilson (specially appearing), the default was set aside on April 8, 2024, and the service was quashed on the ground that service was not properly effected on Wilson.

On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of substituted service of the summons and complaint on Wilson at an address on Elmwood Avenue in Magalia, California. According to the proof of service, copies of the summons and complaint were delivered to Jim Wilson (Defendant Wilson’s father) on May 29, 2024, and then mailed to Defendant Wilson at the same address on that same day.

On August 20, 2024, Wilson filed this motion to quash service of summons and complaint. On September 4, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. On September 16, Wilson filed a reply.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10 provides the requirements of personal service of summons and the complaint as follows:

“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.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20 governs substituted service. Subdivision (a) applies to substituted service at an office or usual mailing address. Subdivision (b) applies to substituted service at a person’s residence and provides, in part:

“If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served … 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., § 415.20, subd. (b).)

A defendant may challenge service through a motion to quash service of the summons filed under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10. “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; see also, e.g., Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) Although the filing of a proof of service by a registered process server creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper (see Evid. Code § 647), that presumption may be rebutted by contrary evidence submitted by a defendant. (See, e.g., Fernandes v. Singh (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 932, 941 n.6.)

In ruling on a motion to quash service of summons, the trial judge acts as the finder of fact and can resolve any conflicts in the evidence. (Kroopf v. Guffey (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1351, 1356.)

If service of summons is not properly and validly effectuated by one or more of the approved methods, California courts lack personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and any judicial actions taken without such service violates principles of fundamental due process and is therefore void. (County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1231.)

DISCUSSION

According to the proof of service filed with the Court on August 2, 2024, Wilson was served through substituted service at his residence on Elmwood Avenue in Magalia, California on May 29, 2024.

Wilson, however, has presented evidence, through his own testimony and the testimony of his father, that he did not live at the residence on Elmwood Avenue in Magalia, California at the time of service, or at any other time in 2024. (Matthew Wilson Decl., ¶¶ 5-6; Jimmie Wilson Decl., ¶ 6.) The address at which Defendant Wilson was purportedly served was the residence of Defendant Wilson’s father, not Defendant Wilson. (Jimmie Wilson Decl., ¶ 6.)

Other than the proof of service and the process server’s declaration of due diligence, the only contrary evidence that Plaintiff cites is a printout of an online search result that lists the Elmwood Avenue address as the “likely current address” for Wilson at some time in 2024. (Rosenberg Decl., Exh. 6.)

Based on the evidence in the record, the Court finds that the Elmwood Avenue address in Magalia, California was not Wilson’s residence, dwelling house, or usual place of abode as of May 29, 2024. Accordingly, the attempt to effect substituted service on Wilson on that date and at that address was not successful.

The motion is quash is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS the motion to quash filed by Specially Appearing Defendant Matthew Duncan Wilson.

The Court QUASHES the proof of service of the summons and complaint filed with the Court on August 2, 2024.

The Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice.