Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCV22846, Date: 2025-04-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV22846 Hearing Date: April 2, 2025 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: April
2, 2025
CASE NAME: Tammy
Wade, et al. v. Kevin Antoine Garlington, et al.
CASE NO.: 23STCV22846
MOTION
TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Specially
Appearing Cross-Defendant South Central Los Angeles Regional Center for
Developmentally Disabled Persons, Inc.; Joinder by Specially Appearing
Cross-Defendants Dexter Henderson, Cherylle Mallinson, Evelyn Galindo, Isaac
Curtis, Monica Mahon, and Jetta Turner
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Cross-Complainant Kevin Antoine
Garlington
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
Order quashing service of summons on Garlington’s Amended Cross-Complaint for
lack of jurisdiction.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Motion
to quash service of summons on Amended Cross-Complaint is DENIED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On September 21, 2023, Plaintiffs Tammy Wade and Serenity
Inclusive Family Services LLC (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint against Defendants
Kevin Antoine Garlington, Vader Servicing LLC dba Vader Mountain Capital, and
Ingrid Pena Villalobos (Defendants) with seven causes of action for: (1) Breach
of Operating Agreement, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (3) Fraud, (4)
Conversion, (5) Cancellation of Instruments, (6) Violation of Rosenthal Unfair
Debt Collection Act, and (7) Involuntary Dissolution of Serenity Inclusive
Family Services LLC (Cal. Corp. Code § 1800 et seq.).
According to the Complaint, since 2018, the parties provided
individual and family supportive living services for clients with intellectual
and developmental disabilities as a vendor of the Regional Center. Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant Garlington wrongfully assumed all executive and
decision-making functions relating to money. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants
have siphoned money, mishandled payroll, failed to pay taxes, took client files
without authorization, and other wrongdoing.
On November 29, 2023, Defendant Garlington filed an Answer.
On May 1, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Request for Dismissal as
to Defendant Ingrid Pena Villalobos only.
On May 22, 2024, Plaintiffs moved ex parte for an Order Appointing a Receive, TRO, and OSC which the
court GRANTED.
On May 23, 2024, Defendant Garlington filed a motion for
leave to file a cross-complaint.
On June 7, 2024, the clerk entered default against Defendant
Vader Servicing LLC dba Vader Mountain Capital.
On July 16, 2024, the court GRANTED a Preliminary
Injunction.
On August 2, 2024, the court GRANTED Plaintiff’s ex parte request to amend the Order
Appointing Receiver and for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction.
On October 18, 2024, Defendant Garlington filed a motion for
leave to file a cross-complaint.
On October 24, 2024, Defendant Garlington filed amotion for
leave to file a cross-complaint which the court GRANTED.
On November 8, 2024, Defendant Garlington filed a
Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Tammy Wade, Crystal Adams, Tranika
Hickman, Janice Bloomer Buchanan, Janet Talford, South Central Los Angeles
Regional Center for Persons with Developmental Disabilities, Inc., Evelyn
Galindo, Isaac Curtis, Monica Mahon, Cherylle Mallinson, Dexter Henderson, and
Jetta Turner with thirteen (13) causes of action for: (1) Breach of LLC
Operating Agreement; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (3) Fraud; (4) Conversion;
(5) Inducing Conversion; (6) Breach of Contract; (7) Inducing Breach of
Contract; (8) Involuntary Dissolution of Serenity Inclusive Family Services LLC
(Cal. Corps. Code § 1800 et seq.); (9) Civil RICO Violation; (10) Whistleblower
Retaliation Violation; (11) Unfair Business Practices; (12) Breach of Implied
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (13) Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress.
On December 3, 2024, Garlington filed a First Amended
Cross-Complaint.
On January 2, 2025, Garlington filed a motion for leave to
amend the cross-complaint which the court took off calendar.
On January 6, 2025, Garlington filed another motion for
leave to amend cross-complaint.
On January 6, 2025, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Tammy Wade
and Serenity Inclusive Family Services LLC filed a motion to strike
Garlington’s First Amended Cross-Complaint.
On January 6, 2025, Specially Appearing Cross-Defendant
South Central Los Angeles Regional Center for Developmentally Disabled Persons,
Inc. (SCLARC) filed the instant motion to quash.
On January 6, 2025, Cross-Complainant Garlington filed an
opposition to SCLARC’s motion to quash.
On January 7, 2025, Garlington filed an opposition to Wade
& Serenity’s motion to strike.
On January 7, 2025, Non-Party Stephen J. Donell filed an ex parte application for order
terminating the receivership effective January 8, 2025 which the court GRANTED.
On March 3, 2025, Cross-Defendant Janet Talford filed an
Answer to Garlington’s First Amended Cross-Complaint.
On March 19, 2025, Specially Appearing Cross-Defendants
Dexter Henderson, Cherylle Mallinson, Evelyn Galindo, Isaac Curtis, Monica
Mahon, and Jetta Turner (the Employee Cross-Defendants) filed an untimely
Joinder to SCLARC’s motion to quash.[1]
On March 25, 2025, SCLARC filed a reply.
On March 25, 2025, Cross-Complainant Garlington filed a
sur-reply.
LEGAL STANDARD:
A defendant may serve and file a notice of motion to quash
service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over it.¿
(Code Civ. Proc. (CCP) § 418.10, subd. (a).)¿ CCP § 418.10 provides the
exclusive procedure for challenging personal jurisdiction at the outset.¿ (Roy v. Superior Court (2005) 127
Cal.App.4th 337, 342.)¿ Although the defendant is the moving party, the burden
of proof is on the plaintiff to defeat the motion by establishing that
jurisdictional grounds exist.¿ (Mihlon v.
Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.)¿
ANALYSIS:
SCLARC contends that this court lacks jurisdiction because
Cross-Complainant Garlington did not obtain leave to add them to the
Cross-Complaint and filed an Amended Cross-Complaint with substantial
substantive edits without leave of court. Cross-Complainant Garlington argues
that he believed he had leave to file a mixed cross-complaint and apologizes to
the extent that his Amended Cross-Complaint exceeded the scope of leave
previously granted. SCLARC replies that Garlington admitted the Amended
Cross-Complaint is improper and so this court should grant their motion.
“The court may . . . [s]trike out all or any part of any
pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with . . . an order of the court.”
(CCP § 436(b).)
As a threshold matter, SCLARC is not seeking an order
quashing the summons on the Amended Cross-Complaint but is really seeking an
order striking the Amended Cross-Complaint. Since there is an upcoming motion
for leave to amend the cross-complaint and a motion to strike the Amended
Cross-Complaint, the court declines to rule on those motions now.
Accordingly, the court DENIES SCLARC’s motion to quash.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
1. Motion
to quash service of summons on Amended Cross-Complaint is DENIED.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 2, 2025 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court