Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV26272, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV26272    Hearing Date: January 23, 2025    Dept: 29

Zane v. Goya Studios, LLC
23STCV26272
Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Tentative

The hearing on the motion is continued to allow for further briefing and evidence.

Background

On October 27, 2023, Edwin Zane (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Goya Studios, LLC, Spatial Industries Group, Dark Slope Studios, and Does 1 through 25, asserting causes of action for general negligence and premises liability arising out of an incident in which, Plaintiff alleges, he fell and sustained a serious injury on June 8, 2022.

On February 20, 2024, Goya Studios, LLC, filed an answer to the complaint, as well as a cross-complaint against Elleaevents, LLC, Spatial Industries Group, Inc., Dark Slope, Inc. dba Dark Slope Studios, and Roes 1 through 10.

On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff amended his complaint to name Elleaevents, LLC as Doe 1.

The default of Elleaevents, LLC on the cross-complaint was entered on August 5, 2024.

On November 12, 2024, counsel for Specially Appearing Defendants Spatial Industries Group, Inc. (“Spatial”) and Dark Slope Studios (“Dark Slope”) filed a declaration under Code of Civil Procedure sections 430.41 and 435.5 in relation to a 30-day automatic statutory extension of time to respond to the complaint.

The next day, on November 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed Affidavits of Service indicating that Spatial and Dark Slope were each served by personal delivery of the summons and complaint to Jane Doe (who refused to provide her name) on July 11, 2024, at 793 Pharmacy Avenue in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

On November 19, 2024, Goya Studios, LLC filed a request for dismissal of its cross-complaint with prejudice. 

On December 12, 2024, Spatial and Dark Slope (collectively, “Defendants”) filed this motion to quash service of summons. Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 9, 2025, and Defendants filed a reply on January 15, 2025.

Legal Standard

Proper service of a summons on each defendant is a constitutional and statutory requirement in all civil actions.  Without proper service (or, for example, consent or waiver), a court does not acquire jurisdiction over a defendant, and in general any judgment rendered against the defendant is void.  (E.g., Kremerman v. White (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 358, 371; County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1231.)

The Code of Civil Procedure provides for service on a defendant within the State of California by four basic methods: (1) personal service; (2) substitute service; (3) service by mail and acknowledgement of receipt; and (4) service by publication.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 415.10, 415.20, 415.30, 415.50.)

For a defendant located outside of California but within the United States, service may be made using any of these methods, any method authorized by the law of the place where the person is served, or by certified mail with a return receipt.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 413.10, subd. (b) & 415.40.)

For a defendant located outside of the United States, the rules are slightly more complicated.  The United States and more than 80 other countries are signatories to the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, November 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638 (the “Hague Service Convention”).  Where the Hague Service Convention applies, it preempts state law with regard to service of process, and the parties must comply with the procedures for service set forth in the Convention.  (Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk (1988) 486 U.S. 694, 699, 705; Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 125, 137-138; Code Civ. Proc., § 413.10, subd. (c).)

Where the Hague Service Convention does not apply, service may be made using any of the four methods for service in California, or by certified mail with a return receipt.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 413.10, subd. (c) & 415.40.)  Alternatively, service may be made “as directed by the court in which the action is pending,” or by any method authorized by the law of the place where the person is served “if the court before or after service finds that the service is reasonably calculated to give actual notice.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 413.10, subd. (c).)

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.)

Even when service is properly effected, a defendant may bring a motion to quash service of the summons under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 on the ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant.  “When a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction.”  (Vons Companies. v. Seabest Foods (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 449; accord Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1062; Swenberg v. Dmarcian, Inc. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 280, 291; Elkman v. National States Ins. Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1313.)  “If the plaintiff meets this initial burden, then the defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.”  (Pavlovich v. Super. Ct. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 273; accord Snowney, supra, 35 Cal. 4th at p. 1062; Vons Companies, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 449; Swenberg, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 291.)

There are two different kinds of personal jurisdiction: general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction.  General jurisdiction applies when a defendant is domiciled in the forum or is otherwise “essentially at home.”  (Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. (2021) 592 U.S. 351, 358; see also Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 137.)  Specific jurisdiction, in contrast, examines the relationship between the defendant’s contacts with the forum state and the causes of action asserted in the litigation; it requires that there be some evidence of “purposeful availment” or other connection between the defendant and the forum and that the litigation arises out of the defendant’s forum-related contacts.  (Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at pp. 359-360.)  

Jurisdictional facts must be established through admissible evidence, including declarations, affidavits, or properly authenticated documents.  (Swenberg, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 291; In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.)  The plaintiff cannot, however, rely simply on allegations in an unverified complaint or inadmissible hearsay.  (Swenberg, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 291.)  In an appropriate case, discovery on the jurisdictional facts may be permitted.  (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1173; see also 1 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (2024), ¶ 3:386.)

Discussion

Defendants’ moving papers raise issues of service and jurisdiction, but Defendants do so in summary fashion.  Defendants invoke, in rather general terms, the Hague Service Convention and issues of minimum contacts, but Defendant do not explain how the service that was made did not comply with the Hague Service Convention or why there would not be minimum contacts in this matter where the allegations of the complaint assert that Defendants committed a tort in Los Angeles. 

To be sure, Plaintiff has the burden of proof on these issues, and Defendants did provide some additional detail in their reply.  Nonetheless, because the moving papers were so general, the Court finds that on this record Plaintiff did not have an adequate opportunity to respond in his opposition – particularly given that Plaintiff bears the burden of proof on issues of service and jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, the Court continues the hearing so that Plaintiff can fully respond to Defendants’ arguments regarding service and jurisdiction, as clarified and amplified in Defendants’ reply.  Plaintiff is specifically advised that he has the burden of proof on these issues and that he must present admissible evidence, whether through declarations, authenticated documentary evidence, or otherwise; Plaintiff may not rely solely on the allegations in an unverified complaint or statements of counsel that are not based on personal knowledge.

Conclusion 

The Court CONTINUES the hearing for approximately 30 days.

The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff may file a supplemental opposition to the motion (and any supporting evidence) no later than 9 court days before the hearing.

The Court ORDERS that Defendants may file a supplemental reply no later than 5 court days before the hearing. 

The Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice.