Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV20388, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20388    Hearing Date: April 22, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Kisha Harris (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on June 22, 2022 against Defendant Lian Boyd (“Defendant”). The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) unlawful retention of security deposit, (2) breach of residential lease agreement, (3) negligence, (4) conversion,

(5) Business and Professions Code section 17200, (6) breach of warranty of habitability, and

(7) breach of statutory warranty of habitability.

Plaintiff now moves for an order “directed towards the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Civil Clerk’s Office [Stanley Mosk Division] to enter Defendant’s default based on proper service of process on Defendant and Defendant’s failure to timely respond.” The motion is unopposed. 

Discussion

On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service in this action indicating that Plaintiff served the summons and Complaint on Defendant by U.S. Mail on July 5, 2022 at the address “Lian Boyd PO Box 7022 Torrance CA 90504.”

Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default against Defendant on September 12, 2022, which was rejected. The Clerk filed a “Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk’s Judgment” on September 14, 2022, which indicates that the September 12, 2022 request for entry of default was rejected because “Lian Boyd *Other - On Proof of Service Section 4 Service by P.O. Box not acceptable. Manner of Service in error. Service for Statement of Damages can’t be served in P.O. Box.”

Plaintiff previously filed another “Motion to Order the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Civil Clerks Office [Stanley Mosk Division] to Enter Defendant’s Default Based on Proper Service of Process on Defendant and Defendant’s Failure to Timely Respond.” On March 8, 2023, the Court issued an Order denying the motion without prejudice. The Court’s March 8, 2023 Order provides, inter alia, as follows:

“Plaintiff also cites to Civil Code section 1962.7, which provides that “[i]n the event an owner, successor owner, manager, or agent specified in Section 1961 fails to comply with the requirements of this chapter, service of process by a tenant with respect to a dispute arising out of the tenancy may be made by registered or certified mail sent to the address at which rent is paid, in which case the provisions of Section 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply.” Here, Defendant failed to comply with the requirements of the chapter which include providing in the lease [sic] ”the usual street address at which personal service may be effected of each person who is: (A) Authorized to manage the premises. (B) An owner of the premises or a person who is authorized to act for and on behalf of the owner for the purpose of service of process and for the purpose of receiving and receipting for all notices and demands.” (Emphasis added.) (Civ. Code, § 1962 (a)(1).) Paragraph 31 of the lease agreement identifies only the P.O. Box for Pacific Villas as both the address for the owner and for a person authorized to act for the owner, “for the purpose of service of process and for the purpose of receiving and receipting all notices and demands.” (Verdun Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. 1.) It does not include a street address; therefore, it does not comply with Civil Code section 1962(a)(1) and Plaintiff may serve the summons and complaint pursuant to Civil Code section 1962.7. Paragraph 2 of the lease agreement provides that rent is to be “delivered to Chase Bank account #4902957509;” no street address is identified but the lease states that the rent payment may be made “M-F during the following hours: 10-4 p.m.” Under these unique circumstances, the Court finds that, pursuant to Civil Code section 1962.7, Plaintiff may be entitled to serve the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail sent to both the P.O. Box and the Chase Bank where the Chase Bank account is located with the account number identified in a cover letter to the Bank. Because Plaintiff served the summons and complaint only by first class mail to the P.O. Box, Plaintiff has not yet complied with Civil Code section 1962.7.” (March 8, 2023 Order at pp. 3:11-4:7.)

In the instant motion, Plaintiff notes that on April 17, 2023, she filed a proof of service indicating that Plaintiff served the summons and Complaint on Defendant by “US Mail, Certified Mail, Return Receipt” on July 5, 2022 at the address “Lian Boyd PO Box 7022 Torrance CA 90504.”’

In addition, Plaintiff notes that on June 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed another proof of service indicating that Plaintiff served the summons and Complaint on Defendant by “US Mail, Certified Mail, Return Receipt” on July 5, 2022 at the address “Lian Boyd PO Box 7022 Torrance CA 90504.”’

On June 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default against Defendant, which was rejected. On June 29, 2023, the Clerk filed a “Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk’s Judgment” which indicates that the June 26, 2023 request for entry of default was rejected because “Lian Boyd…Proof of service filed on 6/26/23 not in compliance- Item #4 address where the party was served CANNOT be at the P.O.Box. Service address must be an official address or private mail box. Cannot served at P.O.Box. Also the service CANNOT be by mail within state of California. And there is No appearance made by defendant- the Service must be by Personal Service.”

            As set forth above, Plaintiff seeks an order that “the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Civil Clerk’s Office [Stanley Mosk Division]…enter Defendant’s default based on proper service of process on Defendant and Defendant’s failure to timely respond.” (Mot. at p. 2:5-8.) Plaintiff asserts that she “complied with the Court’s instructions by filing a new proof of service on April 17, 2023. The proof stated that the summons and complaint were served to the Defendant by certified mail with return receipt to the P.O. Box address. Plaintiff attached a copy of the Court’s March 8 order to the request for entry of default.” (Mot. at p. 4:3-7.)

            However, as set forth above, the Court’s March 8, 2023 Order provides, inter alia, that  “[u]nder these unique circumstances, the Court finds that, pursuant to Civil Code section 1962.7, Plaintiff may be entitled to serve the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail sent to both the P.O. Box and the Chase Bank where the Chase Bank account is located with the account number identified in a cover letter to the Bank. Because Plaintiff served the summons and complaint only by first class mail to the P.O. Box, Plaintiff has not yet complied with Civil Code section 1962.7.” (March 8, 2023 Order at p. 4:1-7.) Plaintiff does not appear to provide any evidence demonstrating that the summons and Complaint were served by registered or certified mail to the subject Chase Bank where the Chase Bank account is located, with the account number identified in a cover letter to the Bank. Plaintiff’s motion does not appear to mention service on Chase Bank.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this Order.

DATED:  April 22, 2024       

            ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court