Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 24STCV20988, Date: 2025-04-23 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.
Case Number: 24STCV20988 Hearing Date: April 23, 2025 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: April
23, 2025
CASE NAME: Stephanie
Pinola v. Dugan Investments, LLC, et al.
CASE NO.: 24STCV20988
MOTION
TO DISMISS CROSS-COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
Stephanie Pinola
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants/Cross-Complainants
Dugan Investments LLC and John Dugan
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
Order dismissing the Cross-Complaint due to improper service; and
2. An
Order dismissing the entire action without prejudice.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Motion
to Dismiss is DENIED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff Stephanie Pinola (Plaintiff)
filed a Complaint against Defendants Dugan Investments, LLC and John Dugan (Defendants)
with thirteen causes of action for: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of
Habitability; (2) Negligence; (3) Negligent Hiring; (4) Breach of Contract; (5)
Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (6) Nuisance; (7) Business &
Professions Code § 17200; (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (9)
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (10) Fraudulent Misrepresentation;
(11) Negligent Misrepresentation; (12) Violation of Civil Code § 1940.2; and
(13) Retaliatory Eviction.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff is a tenant at 2231
Hermosa Ave., Apt. #6, Hermosa Beach, California 90254 (the Property) which was
owned and managed by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the Property has
numerous habitability issues that Defendants failed to correct.
On September 18, 2024, Dugan Investments, LLC and John Dugan
filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint with five causes of action for: (1) Civil
Stalking; (2) Cyber Stalking; (3) Defamation; (4) Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress; and (5) Waste.
According to the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Complainants
initiated unlawful detainer proceedings when Cross-Defendant failed to timely
pay rent. Cross-Defendant forcibly vacated the Property on September 7, 2024.
Cross-Complainants allege that Cross-Defendant has engaged in a harassment
campaign as a result ranging from defamatory remarks to physical threats.
On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed an
Answer to the Cross-Complaint.
On January 22, 2025, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant (Pinola) filed
the instant motion to dismiss the Cross-Complaint. On April 7, 2025,
Defendants/Cross-Complainants (Dugan) filed an opposition. On April 8, 2025, Dugan
filed a notice of errata as to the opposition. On April 16, 2025, Pinola filed
a supplemental declaration in support of motion to dismiss.
LEGAL STANDARD:
“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 for one or more of the following
purposes: To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of
the court over him or her.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., (CCP) § 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.)¿¿
ANALYSIS:
Pinola contends that the court should dismiss the
Cross-Complaint because it was improperly served electronically as established
by this court at the January 7, 2025 case management conference. Pinola further
contends that the delay in filing this motion should be excused because she is
a self-represented litigant and there is no prejudice to Dugan. Dugan argues
that Pinola consented to personal jurisdiction by filing her Complaint and that
she has already filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint. Dugan further argues
that Pinola is not entitled to greater latitude as a pro se litigant. Pinola’s
supplemental declaration indicates she objects to the court’s personal
jurisdiction over her and does not seek affirmative relief.
Here, relief is not warranted. Notably, Pinola consented to
this court’s personal jurisdiction by filing the underlying Complaint. (Nobel Floral, Inc. v. Pasero (2003) 106
Cal.App.4th 654, 658.) This includes Dugan’s Cross-Complaint. (Ibid.) The court rejects Pinola’s
remaining arguments.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
1. Motion
to Dismiss is DENIED.
Defendants/Cross-Complainants are to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 23, 2025 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court