Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: BC436803, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC436803    Hearing Date: August 4, 2022    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On May 21, 2021, Plaintiff Neman Brothers & Associates, Inc. renewed its judgment against Defendants Blue Point Textile, Inc. dba Magna Fabric; Farhad Kangavari aka Frahad Kangavari aka Farhad Kangavary, individually and dba CA Collection, and dba Magna Fabric; Veronica Gonzales aka Veronica G. Lozano; Farhad Kangavari and Veronica G. Lozano, The Trustees of the Veronica Living Family Trust Dated October 10, 2008; and White Coast, Inc.

On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed, and the Court issued, Applications and Orders for Appearance and Examination for Farhad Kangavari and Veronica G. Lozano.  At the June 23, 2022 hearing, the Court continued the hearing and instructed defense counsel to file a motion regarding service.

On July 11, 2022, Farhad Kangavari and Veronica G. Lozano each filed a motion to quash service of order to appear for examination and civil subpoena for personal appearance and production of documents.

Plaintiff’s objections to the Declarations of Farhad Kangavari and Veronica G. Lozano are overruled.

A judgment creditor must personally serve a copy of the order for appearance and examination on the judgment debtor not less than 10 days before the date set for the examination.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.110, subd. (d).)  Personal service requires personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person being served.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10.)  The proofs of service reflect service on May 9, 2022 at 6:07 p.m. at 16552 Academia Drive, Encino, California 91436.

Farhad Kangavari declares that he was not home at that time, and he was on board AeroMexico flight number 177 traveling from Tijuana to Mexico City.  (Kangavari Decl. ¶ 4; Kangavari Suppl. Decl. ¶ 18.)  He provides a copy of his eTicket Receipt and travel itinerary for a flight that was scheduled to depart Tijuana on May 9, 2022 at 3:55 p.m. and arrive in Mexico City at 9:25 p.m.  (Kangavari Decl., Ex. 2; Kangavari Suppl. Decl., Ex. 4.)  He no longer has the boarding pass for this flight, but he provides a copy of the boarding pass presented to him at the ticket counter at the Mexico City airport at the time he checked in for the return flight from Mexico City to Tijuana on May 12, 2022.  (Kangavari Suppl. Decl., Ex. 5.)  The E-Ticket number, flight number, date, time, and seat number match the information on the eTicket Receipt.  Therefore, it is a reasonable inference that the eTicket Receipt and travel itinerary for May 9, 2022 is accurate, the reservation was not cancelled, and Kangavari was on the flight from Tijuana to Mexico City.

Veronica Gonzales declares she was not home at the time of purported service and was out running errands.  (Gonzales Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.)  Both defendants provide videos from their home Ring security system.  One recording is dated May 9, 2022 between 4:33:11 p.m. and 4:33:53 p.m.  (Kangavari Decl. ¶ 6; Gonzales Decl. ¶ 6.)  It shows a man holding envelopes, knocking on a window, ringing the doorbell, stating the names of Farhad and Veronica, asking if an unidentified person inside is Veronica, asking if Farhad is there, and stating that he could “leave it for him.”  The video ends as the man bends down and puts the envelopes at the base of the door.  Gonzales declares she was not the individual to whom the man was speaking through the window.  (Gonzales Decl. ¶ 7.)  The defendants provide a second video dated May 9, 2022 at 5:45:45 p.m.  (Kangavari Decl. ¶ 7; Gonzales Decl. ¶ 8.)  That video shows Gonzales opening the door, picking up the envelopes just outside the door, and going back inside.  (Kangavari Decl. ¶ 7; Gonzales Decl. ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff argues that the videos show activity prior to the actual service at 6:07 p.m.  (Opposition at p. 5.)  But Plaintiff does not deny that the videos show its process server.  It is not plausible that the process server arrived, asked for the defendants, left the envelopes, and returned an hour and a half later to effectuate personal service on Gonzales.  Kangavari also provided evidence showing that he was not home to accept personal service.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Kangavari and Gonzales have rebutted the presumption of service.  (See Evid. Code, § 647.)

The motion to quash service of order to appear for examination and civil subpoena for personal appearance and production of documents 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.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

         Dated this 4th day of August 2022