Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV21783, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV21783    Hearing Date: September 20, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On June 9, 2020, plaintiffs Kamran Bahadoran and Leila Rafi (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant Devin Tyler Rose (“Defendant”) arising from a June 14, 2018, motor vehicle collision.  A proof of service of summons filed on June 14, 2022, reflects that Defendant was served by substituted service on June 10, 2022.  Defendant now moves to quash service of summons. 

When a defendant moves to quash service of summons, 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.)  However, filing a proof of service by a registered process server creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper.  (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390; Evid. Code, § 647 [“The return of a process server registered pursuant to . . . the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return”].)  However, the presumption only arises if the proof of service complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.  (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1441-1442.) 

The proof of service filed by Siavosh E. Nehoray, a registered process server, reflects that “John Doe”, an adult member of the household, was served on June 10, 2022, at 220 Ladera Street, #307, Santa Barbara, California 93101.  Defendant first argues that there is no showing that there were any attempts made to personally serve him first.  That is unpersuasive because the proof of service has a “Declaration re Diligence” showing that Mr. Nehoray attempted to serve Defendant three times but did not receive a response at the door the first two times. 

Next, Defendant declares that service was improper because he does not have a roommate and does not live with anybody and did not receive a copy of the summons and complaint in the mail.  (Rose Decl., ¶ 4.)  Therefore, whoever the papers were left with was not a “competent member of the household.”  This argument has more merit.  Plaintiff submits a declaration from Mr. Nehoray stating that the man he served – who refused to provide his name – stated that Defendant was not at home, but there is no evidence that the man was a “competent member of the household.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)    Substitute service is a secondary method of service (Evartt v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 795, 799) and in order to obtain personal jurisdiction through any form of constructive service, there must be strict compliance with statutory requirements (Stamps v. Superior Court (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 108, 110). 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash service is GRANTED. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.