Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV34796, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV34796, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34796 Hearing Date: December 7, 2023 Dept: 29

Tentative

The motion to quash is GRANTED.

Background

Andrew J. Maduk ("Plaintiff") filed suit against Starbucks Corporation (“Defendant”), alleging that Defendant humiliated and intimidated him on November 16, 2021.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint, pro per, on November 1, 2022, alleging the cause of action for an intentional tort as Plaintiff had suffered emotional distress. Plaintiff further alleges Defendant’s actions were based on his race. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on January 19, 2023.

On May 22, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to quash service of the summons and complaint based upon improper service.

On October 18, 2023, Plaintiff apparently attempted to serve Defendant by sending a copy of the FAC and Complaint to Defendant’s agent for service of process by FedEx. (Villamor Decl., ¶ 5.)

On October 26, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to quash service of summons. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

Legal Standard

A defendant may move to quash service on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction by filing a noticed motion to quash the service of summons at any time before the expiration of its time to plead. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) “‘Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.’ [Citation.]” (AO Alfa-Bank v. Yakovlev (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 189, 202.) “To establish personal jurisdiction, compliance with statutory procedures for service of process is essential.” (Kremerman v. White (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 358, 370.) Defendant’s knowledge of the action does not dispense with statutory requirements for service of summons. (Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1457, 1466.)

“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.)

Discussion

Plaintiff apparently attempted to serve Defendant by sending a copy of the Summons, Complaint, FAC, and other court filings to its registered Agent for Service of Process using FedEx. (Villamor, ¶ 5.) Defendant argues service was improper as FedEx is not a means listed in the California Code of Civil Procedure. (Motion, 3-4:27, 1-2.)

Defendant is a Washington corporation. There are various ways in which an out-of-state corporation may be served, including, but not limited to, delivery of the summons and complaint to the corporation’s designated agent for service of process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 416.10, subds. (a), (b), (d); Corps. Code, § 2110.) Where, as here, the agent is located within the State of California, personal service is generally required (subject to certain exceptions). (Corps. Code, § 2110.)

Plaintiff has the burden of proving effective service but has filed no opposition to the motion.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motions to quash service of summons is GRANTED.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.