Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 24STCV19937, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV19937    Hearing Date: January 21, 2025    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff Paul Hosea Jackson filed this action against Defendants Kimberly Young and Ashley Young.

On December 16, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to quash service of summons and complaint.

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).)  “[I]f a defendant is not validly served with a summons and complaint, the court lacks personal jurisdiction.”  (Lee v. An (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 558, 564.)  Substituted service requires leaving a copy of the summons and complaint either at the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)  Plaintiff must also mail 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)

Defendants argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction over them because they were not properly served with the summons and complaint.  Defendants manage a property at 4200 Leimert Park Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90008.  (A. Young Decl. ¶ 2; K. Young Decl. ¶ 2.)  On October 8, 2024, Ashley Young found a copy of the Summons and Complaint on a gate at the property.  (A. Young Decl. ¶ 2; see K. Young Decl. ¶ 2.)  Neither Defendant was personally served, and no one at the property accepted service on their behalf.  (Young Decl. ¶ 3; K. Young Decl. ¶ 3.)  Defendants have shown that they were not served through personal or substituted service.  No proof of service has been filed.

“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.)  Plaintiff has not opposed this motion and thus has not demonstrated effective service.

Accordingly, the motion to quash service of summons and complaint 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 21st day of January 2025