Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 24STCV32400, Date: 2025-04-22 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Specially Appearing Defendant Timothy Dodd (erroneously sued as Tim Dodd)

1. An Order quashing service of summons due to defective and inadequate service of process.

On December 9, 2024, Plaintiff CDEV, LLC (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Valley Herbal Healing Center and Tim Dodd (Defendants) with five causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Quantum Meruit; (3) Fraud; (4) Violation of Penal Code § 496; and (5) Alter Ego.

According to the Complaint, the parties entered an agreement on November 5, 2020 concerning cannabis sale. Plaintiff alleges that it fully performed but that Defendants breached by failing to pay the agreed upon compensation, failed to provide documentation regarding sales, and failed to provide shelf space. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants never intended to perform.

On January 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed proof of service of summons indicating personal service on Defendant Timothy Dodd via Katchko, Vitello & Karikomi, P.C., Agent for Service on January 3, 2025.

On March 5, 2025, Specially Appearing Defendant Timothy Dodd (erroneously sued as Tim Dodd) (Dodd) filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons. Oppositions were due on or before April 9, 2025. As of April 17, 2025, the court has not received any opposition.

“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.)¿¿

Dodd contends an order quashing service of the summons is proper because he was not personally served and the agent for the corporate co-defendant was not only unauthorized to accept service on his behalf but did not do so. Dodd further contends that the summons is fatally defective because Plaintiff failed to complete it.

Here, the court agrees that the proof of service is defective. First, it indicates personal service on someone authorized to accept service on behalf of Dodd, not personal service on Dodd.[1] Dodd is an individual, not a corporation. Second, Dodd’s evidence that he was not personally served is well taken. While the Evidence Code provides a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence for a registered process server, the court is unaware of authority providing the same for an unregistered process server. (See American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199¿Cal.App.4th 383, 390; Evid. Code § 647.) Plaintiff did not provide evidence, let alone an opposition.[2]

[1] The court notes that Dodd is purportedly the CEO of the corporate defendant who was apparently served via their registered agent. The court also notes that counsel for Dodd is also counsel for the corporate defendant.

[2] The court declines to develop the incomplete summons argument.