Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV12542, Date: 2025-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV12542    Hearing Date: May 29, 2025    Dept: 45

PREFERRED BANK v. VOVARA GROUP, INC., et al.

MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON SECRETARY OF STATE for defendants vovara group, inc., archidiem, llc, vovalytics, llc and vovara solutions, llc

Date of Hearing:        May 29, 2025                        Trial Date:       None set

Department:              45                                            Case No.:        24STCV12542

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Preferred Bank

Responding Party:     None

BACKGROUND

On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff Preferred Bank filed a complaint against Defendants Vovara Group, Inc., Archidiem, LLC, Vovalytics, LLC, Vovara Solutions, LLC, Cherif Algrealty, and Akrum Aloui Bastawi for interpleader.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Authorizing Service of Process on Secretary of State for Defendants is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves the court for an order directing and authorizing service of process upon Defendants Vovara Gropu, Inc., Archidiem, LLC, Vovalytics, LLC and Vovara Solutions, LLC by service of process upon the Secretary of State, or an Assistant or Deputy Secretary of State, of the State of California.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 416.10(d) permits a summons to be served on a corporation by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint to the Secretary of State. (CCP § 416.10(d).) 

Under Corporations Code Section 1702(a), “[i]f an agent for the purpose of service of process has resigned and has not been replaced or if the agent designated cannot with reasonable diligence be found at the address designated for personally delivering the process, or if no agent has been designated, and it is shown by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court that process against a domestic corporation cannot be served with reasonable diligence upon the designated agent by hand in the manner provided in Section 415.10, subdivision (a) of Section 415.20 or subdivision (a) of Section 415.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure or upon the corporation in the manner provided in subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 416.10 or subdivision (a) of Section 416.20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may make an order that the service be made upon the corporation by delivering by hand to the Secretary of State, or to any person employed in the Secretary of State’s office in the capacity of assistant or deputy, one copy of the process for each defendant to be served, together with a copy of the order authorizing such service. Service in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after delivery of the process to the Secretary of State.” (Corp. Code § 1702(a).) 

Plaintiff makes the motion on the grounds personal service of process cannot be effected despite reasonable diligence in attempting to make such service. (Tokumori Decl. ¶4.) Plaintiff maintains the registered agent for service of process for each of the Defendants resigned on or about December 15, 2023 and left no agent in its stead (Tokumori Decl. ¶ 6), no verifiable officer, general manager, trustee or other agent authorized by the Defendants can be found (Tokumori Decl. ¶ 6-7), and Defendants have not filed a designation of agent for purposes of service of process with the Secretary of State of the State of California (Tokumori Decl. ¶7). Additionally, on April 4, 2025, Defendant Cherif Algreatly advised Counsel that the business of the Defendants is “no longer ongoing.” (Tokumori Decl. ¶8.)

The court finds that these actions constitute  reasonably diligent efforts by Plaintiff to serve Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Authorizing Service of Process on Secretary of State for Defendants is GRANTED.