Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV08473, Date: 2025-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08473    Hearing Date: March 19, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

            Background

Plaintiff Lawrence Adams (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action on April 17, 2023 against Defendants Neutral Ground (“Neutral Ground”), Corey Sims (“Sims”), City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Housing Department, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive.

On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) Declaratory Relief, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and (4) Common Count – Account Stated.

On April 11, 2024, this Court sustained Defendant City of Los Angeles’ demurrer to the first and fourth causes of action of the FAC without leave to amend. On May 6, 2024, Defendant City of Los Angeles was dismissed from this action.

On May 21, 2024, Sims filed his Answer.

On October 21, 2024, this Court sustained Defendant Los Angeles Housing Department’s demurrer to the first and fourth causes of action of the FAC with leave to amend. On December 2, 2024, Defendant Los Angeles Housing Department was dismissed from this action.

On February 18, 2025, Defendant Corey Sims (“Sims”) filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons. The motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

            A defendant, on or before the last day of their 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 over them. (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) A court lacks jurisdiction over a party if there has not been proper service of process. ((Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.) “[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction.” ((Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.) “[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper” but “only if the proof of service complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs. (Id., at 1441- 1442.) 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.) 

            Discussion

Sims moves for an order quashing alleged service on Neutral Ground on the grounds that the purported service is untimely and fails to adhere to the service requirements set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 418.

Personal Service Was Not Effected

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10.)

The proof of personal service (“POS”) filed by Plaintiff on October 18, 2024, states that the Secretary of State was served with the “Summon [sic] and Complaint” on October 11, 2024. There is no mention of Neutral Ground in the POS. (POS, filed 10/18/24.) Plaintiff filed a proof of personal service on January 14, 2025, which states that “Neutral Grounds” was served via personal service on January 10, 2025 at 19323 Lavi Ct., Tarzana, CA 91356. (POS, filed 1/14/25.) However, the POS does not state who was served on behalf of “Neutral Grounds,” whether they were an authorized agent of service, whether they were 18 years or older, or any other physical description of the party served. (Id.) Furthermore, Sims avers that (a) he does not own property at the Tarzana location where the purported service was made nor does he conduct business there, (b) Neutral Ground has not been an operating business since 2023 and when it was, Sims was its principal, and (c) Neutral Ground never owned or operated the business at the Tarzana location. (Sims Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) Additionally, Sims discovered that the documents purportedly served at the Tarzana location were left with the occupant’s 14-year-old son who did not know what the documents were or why they were left there. (Id. at ¶5.) Also, Mary Glynn, who states under oath in the POS that she served “Neutral Grounds” via personal service on January 10, 2025, also states that she is not a registered process server; consequently, her representations are not entitled to the presumption of validity per Evidence Code Section 647. Lastly, by failing to oppose this motion, Plaintiff provides no evidence to demonstrate that personal service was properly effected on Neutral Ground. Thus, the Court finds that personal service was not effected on Neutral Ground.

Substituted Service Was Not Effected

“In lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served as specified in Section 416.10, 416.20, 416.30, 416.40, or 416.50, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address, other than a United States Postal Service post office box, with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and 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. When service is effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at a mailing address, it shall be left with a person at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (a).) Neutral Ground is alleged to be a corporation; consequently, section 416.10 applies to Neutral Ground. However, there is no evidence that the Tarzana address was Neutral Grounds office or usual mailing address, as required by section 415.20, subd. (a).

Additionally, the summons and complaint were not mailed to the Tarzana location where the purported service had occurred. (Douglas Decl., ¶8.) Instead, Douglas testified in his declaration that these documents were mailed to an unrelated address on January 30, 2025. (Id.) Here again, because Plaintiff fails to oppose the instant motion and fails to demonstrate that substituted service was properly effected on Neutral Ground, the Court finds that substituted service also was not effected on Neutral Ground.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED. The service of summons on Neutral Ground is quashed.

Sims is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED:  March 19, 2025                             

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court