Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case 22STCV33782 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

On October 18, 2022, Plaintiffs Elle B. Mambetov and Mambetova Holdings (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint in Intervention for violation of Civil Code § 1950.8(a), (b), and (c) against Defendants Tzuri Inc., and Zuri Mesica (“Defendants.”) The Complaint alleges that the parties entered into a commercial rental agreement for the Subject Property in Beverly Hills, California. Plaintiff alleges that they received messages from Defendant Mesica demanding “key money,” in violation of Assembly Bill 533, which prohibits landlords from collecting keying fee. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants provided a fee schedule that was contrary to the lease agreement.

On November 21, 2022, Defendants Tzuri Inc., and Zuri Mesica filed the current Motion to Quash Service of Summons. No Opposition has been filed as of March 8, 2023.

“A defendant . . . may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a).) “[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.]” (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 it “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.) “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.)

Defendants move to quash the service of summons on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction over them as Plaintiff has not completed service of the summons.

Under CCP § 418.10(a)(1), a defendant may move to quash the service of summons on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction over him or her. Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to effect proper service of process.

“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.) “The filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper. However, the presumption arises only if the proof of service complies with the applicable statutory requirements.” (Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795.) “Evidence Code section 647 provides that a registered process server's declaration of service establishes a presumption that the facts stated in the declaration are true.” (Rodriguez v. Cho (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 742, 750.)

Here, Plaintiffs have failed to file a proof of service with the Court. Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof establishing jurisdiction of this Court.

[1] Accordingly, the Court need not address the numerous other defects in the purported Complaint on Intervention that would otherwise cause the Court to Strike the Entire Complaint pursuant to CCP §436(b).