Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 24STCV07098, Date: 2024-08-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV07098    Hearing Date: August 13, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On March 21, 2024, Plaintiff Arsen Manson filed this action against Defendants State of California and Laura Simpton.

On June 27, 2024, Laura Simpton filed a motion to quash service of summons.  Plaintiff did not file any opposition.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary.

A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion and motion to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).)  “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, fn. omitted.)

The only Proof of Service filed by Plaintiff states that a Declaration of Due Diligence was personally served at Department 48 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Plaintiff filed a Declaration of Due Diligence on June 4, 2024, which states that on May 3, 2024, he served Defendant with the summons and complaint through Certified Mail with signature at PO Box 350, Sacramento, CA 95812-0350.  Plaintiff served the same documents in the same manner again on May 28, 2024.

A defendant may be served with the summons and complaint by mail with two copies of a notice and acknowledgment of receipt and a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the sender.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.30.)  Plaintiff’s Declaration of Due Diligence does not show service of a notice and acknowledgment of receipt.  Although Plaintiff declares that the Certified Mail was “received under Signature,” “[a] postal service return receipt does not suffice as a substitute for an executed acknowledgement of receipt of summons.”  (Tandy Corp. v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 911, 913.)

Additionally, a summons must be served by someone who is not a party to the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 414.10.)  The prohibition on service of a summons by the opposing party is strictly enforced.  (Braugh v. Dow (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 76, 89.)  “When a party has served notice on the opposing party, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant.”  (Caldwell v. Coppola (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 859, 865.)  The Declaration of Due Diligence states that Plaintiff mailed the summons, and it is signed by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff did not file an opposition, so he has not proven the facts requisite to an effective service.  The Court therefore concludes that Defendant was not properly served.

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Quash Service of Summons is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 13th day of August 2024